Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 26 July 2017

Time:                                    1pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

20 July 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Carolyn Gallagher

Tel: 941 8879

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

Councillor Cotter

Membership

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

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

 

Responsibilities

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

 

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

·         Encourages opportunities for citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·         Works in partnerships with key agencies, groups and organisations

·         Encourages innovative approaches and sustainable solutions

 

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

·         Water supply, conservation and quality

·         Stormwater drainage including the Land Drainage Recovery Programme

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

·         Natural hazards protection, including flood protection and river control

·         Solid waste minimisation and disposals

·         Sewage collection, treatment and disposal

·         Roads, footpaths and streetscapes

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

 

Delegations

 

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

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

 

Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Programme

 

At the Council meeting of 9 March 2017:

 

It was resolved that the Council:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Christchurch Biodiversity Fund

 

At the Council meeting of 20 June 2017:

 

It was resolved that the Council:

 

5.         Delegate authority to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider and approve applications to the Christchurch Biodiversity Fund.

 

 

 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

STAFF REPORTS

A       6.       Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress..................................... 13

B       7.       Canterbury Regional Transport Committee and Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee Minutes (unconfirmed)........................................................................... 177

B       8.       Transport Unit - Bi-Monthly Report.......................................................................... 191

A       9.       Proposed Lower Styx, Marshland and Hawkins Road Intersection Improvement and widening of Marshland Road Bridge......................................................................... 209

C       10.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 394  

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 29 June 2017 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 29 June 2017

Time:                                    12.37pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

29 June 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00028

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 7 June 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                      Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Irinka Britnell (Linwood Village and Worcester Street Business/Community Survival and Revival Group and Avon City Backpackers), Mandy Heasley (Under the Red Veranda), Malcolm Middle and Mike Britnell presented a deputation regarding the staff advice on the petition requesting that the intersection of Worcester Street at Fitzgerald Avenue remain open to vehicular traffic in all four directions.

 

6.   Staff Advice Regarding the Petition Requesting the Intersection of Worcester Street at Fitzgerald Avenue Remain Open to Vehicular Traffic in all Four Directions

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00029

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Acknowledges the submission of the petition and request staff to conduct a review of the effectiveness and impact of the intersection change in 12 months. Staff are also requested to consider opportunities to mitigate the impact of this project through improved way findings and signage and to work with the Community Board to facilitate the regeneration of the Linwood Village.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Templeton                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

 

 

Sally Ann Buck (Community Board Chair) presented the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board feedback regarding the Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road Major Cycleway Route Options.

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

 

4.2       The following presented deputations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road Major Cycleway Route Options Report:

1.1       Carina Duke on behalf of the Blind Foundation

1.2       Ernest Tsao (Liberty Market)

1.3       Clare Simpson on behalf of the Automobile Association

1.4       Tony Carey

1.5       Ray Edwards on behalf of the Ferry Road business owners group

1.6       Dirk De Lu on behalf of Spokes

1.7       Robert Fleming

1.8       Dave Alexander

1.9       Charlotte Bebbington on behalf of herself and the action bicycle club

1.10    Steve Muir (Inner city east cycles)

1.11    Ian Wells

1.12    Celia Hogan

1.13    Francesca Bradley

 

The Committee adjourned at 2.55pm and reconvened at 3.05pm.

Councillor Galloway arrived at 3.06pm

 

1.14    Sonja Carpenter

1.15    Tapu Tuifuga

1.16    Mavis Mosely

1.17    Prisca Pieters (Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust)

1.18    Peter Clements

1.19    Stephen Hannen

1.20    Peter Griffioen

1.21    Tony Walter (Business Manager of Grace Vineyard Church)

1.22    David McGregor on behalf of the Grace Vineyard Church

1.23    David Fleming

1.24    David Lee

1.25    Brent Wylie

1.26    Rosalee Jenkin and Chris Stinson on behalf of Generation Zero

1.27    Axel Wilke

1.28    Les Sparrow

1.29    Wayne Hawker on behalf of the Phillipstown Community Centre (also Community Hub and Safety Panel)

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

 

Ernest Tsao from Liberty Market presented a petition as part of his deputation. The petition opposed the proposal to ban a right-turn (and U-turn) at the intersection of Fitzgerald Avenue (northbound) and Ferry Road.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4.26pm to reconvene at 8.00am on Monday 3 July 2017 in the Council Chambers.

 


 

The meeting reconvened at 8.07am on Monday 3 July 2017.

 

Apologies

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00030

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Cotter, seconded by Councillor Clearwater that the apology for lateness from Councillor Keown be accepted.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                            Carried

 

Councillor Keown arrived at 8.09am.

 

7.   MCR Heathcote Expressway - Ferry Road Options Report

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee considered the staff report, Community Board feedback and deputations received on the MCR Heathcote Expressway – Ferry Road Options.

2.         The Committee resolved to approve the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road as the route selection for the remaining part of the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route.

3.         The Committee considered a further option (option five) submitted by Ray Edwards. The Committee resolved, by way of amendment, to request that staff investigate the merits of this option and report back to the Committee in August 2017.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road as the route selection for the remaining part of the Heathcote Expressway.

2.         Approve that the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road Section of the Heathcote Expressway, (between 77 Ferry Road and 9 Charles Street), proceed to detailed design and construction as shown in attachment A – Ferry Road Preferred Option Plans.

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

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

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00031

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Approve the Ferry Road and Wilsons Road as the route selection for the remaining part of the Heathcote Expressway.

Councillor Templeton/Councillor Davidson                                                                                                      Carried

Councillor Keown requested his vote against this be recorded.

 

 

 

 

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2017/00032

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

2.         Instruct staff to investigate the merits of option 5, including any consultation requirements and report back to the August 2017 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Keown                                                                                                                    Carried

Councillors Templeton and Davidson requested their votes against this amendment be recorded.

Councillor Buck abstained from voting for this amendment.

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 9.23am

   

 

 

CONFIRMED THIS 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017

 

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Chairperson

   


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

6.        Flood Management and Multi-Hazard Assessment Progress

Reference:

17/734918

Contact:

Peter Kingsbury

peter.kingsbury@ccc.govt.nz

027 599 4615

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to:

1.1.1   Update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the development of a multi-hazard assessment approach, and specifically the gap-analysis assessment, for supporting the development of floodplain management plans for Christchurch.

1.1.2   Request approval to proceed with additional technical studies for the purpose of satisfying identified information gaps and progressing floodplain management plans using a multi-hazard approach.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  However, it follows from a report (Ref. 16/644382) to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) on the 12 July 2016.  The July 2016 report stated that the gap-analysis report would be presented to ITE and approval sought to proceed to the next stage of the multi-hazard assessment.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are of medium significance with regard to the Christchurch City Council’s (the Council) Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined through consideration of community interest in natural hazards, potential implications for the Council regarding implementation of floodplain management plans, and potential interactions with future uses of the Residential Red Zone.

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation has not been undertaken on the general scoping and development of the project.  A decision to progress the multi-hazard assessment is supported by public engagement on natural hazards as part of the review of the Christchurch District Plan.  If the Council supports the recommendation to progress with the additional multi-hazard technical studies, future engagement with communities will be on all natural hazards and will also include engagement on broader hazard and risk management concepts, including community adaptation.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Proceed with the preferred option (Option 1) which is to progress the multi-hazard analysis by completing further technical studies and developing floodplain management plans.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

And also supports:

4.1.2   Activity: Natural Hazards Policy and Planning

Level of Service: 17.0.23 Development of new policies, strategies and plans.

4.1.3   Activity: Co-ordinate civil defence readiness, response and recovery

Level of Service: 2.5.1 Council is prepared for and maintains an effective response capacity to manage civil defence emergencies.

4.1.4   Activity: Public education to increase community awareness and preparedness

Level of Service: 2.5.4 Improve the level of community and business awareness and preparedness of risks from hazards and their consequences.

4.2       The following options are considered in this report:

·     Option 1 - Progress with additional technical studies to address the information gaps identified in the gap-analysis required for completing a multi-hazard analysis (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Do nothing. 

4.3       The key findings of the technical information gap-analysis work are:

4.3.1   There is a lack of information and understanding of some natural hazards and their association and relationship to one another.

4.3.2   Significant parts of Christchurch are subject to more than one (multiple) hazard (i.e. co-location of hazards).

4.3.3   Individual hazards can interact (i.e. co-incidence of hazards) to create increased risks.

4.3.4   Some hazards have enduring effects (e.g. earthquake induced land settlement) that can exacerbate other hazards (e.g. flooding).

4.3.5   Predictably, the area with the highest co-location and co-incidence of natural hazards is the Residential Red Zone (RRZ).  However, there are other parts of Christchurch subject to several individual natural hazards and/or high combined hazard risks.

4.4       Option 1 Summary - Advantages and disadvantages (preferred option)

4.4.1   The advantages of Option 1 include:

·     A thorough and robust all-hazards basis for preparing floodplain management plans.

·     A fuller understanding of hazard exposure, impact and consequences, providing an improved understanding of total combined risk, and greater clarity for the community regarding long-term planning and hazard management decisions.

·     Greater transparency and robustness in decision-making, and greater confidence and certainty for the community.

·     A reduction in the risk to the community from natural hazards, both in the short- to medium-term, and for future generations in the long-term.

·     Improved Civil Defence Emergency Management response capability based on realistic hazard risk scenarios.

·     The opportunity for sustainable planning and development decisions that are appropriate for both current and future generations.

·     Prudent and responsible use of the Council’s funds for the development of effective, long-term and sustainable hazard management approaches.

4.4.2   The disadvantages of Option 1 include:

·     Greater cost and an extended timeframe for implementing hazard mitigation options.

·     Additional community apprehension from some individuals resulting from the uncertainty associated with the potential findings of the multi-hazards analysis, the cost, and the time required to complete the work.

 

5.   Context/Background

Earlier Report

5.1       On 12 July 2016 the ITE committee received an information report (Ref. 16/644382) Land Drainage Recovery Programme and a Multi-Hazard Approach.  The report outlined the need for and background to a multi-hazard approach to floodplain management.  For the purpose of this report, pertinent extracts from the July 2016 report are reproduced below.

This report [Ref. 16/644382] details progress towards investigations into a multi-hazard assessment approach that considers a wide range of hazards and their interactions to inform decision making on floodplain management in a particular locality.

5.1.1   A multi-hazard assessment approach for long term planning and informing decision-making on future infrastructure planning and construction is proposed.  This approach would consider a range of hazards holistically and promote effective, long term sustainable interventions to reduce risk to the community.

5.1.2   The approach will be used to answer the question: How do we make a decision on flood management in a multi-hazard environment?  A multi-hazard assessment of flood defence, and other management options will help to inform decision making on the most appropriate way to manage floodplains, now and in the future.

5.1.3   Some parts of Christchurch are subject to multiple hazards, particularly the areas adjacent to the lower reaches of our rivers. Many of these areas have been significantly impacted by the effects of the 2010 - 2016 Canterbury Earthquakes ('the earthquakes') that significantly altered the profiles of other hazards.  Long term planning decisions and more immediate infrastructure repair/remediation decisions would be better made in the context of the overall risk posed by all of these hazards.

5.1.4   A 'multi-hazard' assessment approach considers the range of hazards which may affect an area. A multi-hazard assessment approach will provide a full picture of the total risk including likely physical damage, disruption, economic loss, and where appropriate, injuries and deaths.  The current, 'single-hazard' approach considers options for management of individual hazards and ignores costs and benefits associated with management of other hazards.  This approach may 'tie council into' considerable future additional costs for management of additional hazards, and call into question the original decision, for example if a decision was made to defend against a single hazard then subsequent decisions on other hazards could be influenced by the cost of implementing the original hazard defences.  A potential consequence of focusing on only one hazard is that actions taken to mitigate the effects of that one hazard may increase vulnerability/exposure to other hazards.

5.1.5   Effective risk reduction from natural hazards is only possible in Christchurch if all relevant threats are considered.  The natural system needs to be considered as a whole in an all-hazards approach.  Parts of Christchurch are vulnerable to a level of risk that for some hazards is undesirable and potentially, unacceptable.  A multi-hazard assessment would contribute significantly to a better understanding of consequences.

Progress

5.2       The Land Drainage Recovery Programme was established to identify and address the change in flood risk following the earthquakes. Floodplain management options for the lower catchments and coastal margins need to consider the risks of other natural hazards that affect these areas. A detailed gap-analysis of technical information for the multi-hazard assessment was completed in July 2017 (Attachment A – LDRP 97 Multi-Hazard Analysis Gap Analysis Report). 

5.3       The report identifies that a significant number of relevant technical studies are currently available.  However, there is additional technical information that is required to improve the multi-hazard analysis, and inform the development of floodplain management plans.  There are seven areas of work that require further study:

·   The significance of the co-incidence of flooding, extreme weather, coastal erosion and coastal inundation.

·   The significance of elevated groundwater levels to flooding from rainfall run-off/percolation.

·   The consideration of more frequent tsunami events; more frequent than the typically used ‘worse-case scenario’.

·   The nature and likelihood of further vertical ground displacements from future earthquakes.

·   The sediment budget and its contribution to coastal erosion and accretion (sediment deposition).

·   Information on the nature, location and value of Council assets for the economic analysis of the multi-hazard assessment.

·   Specific design guidance for Council infrastructure in floodplains.

5.4       Project briefs are currently being prepared for each of these seven subject matters.  These briefs will define the scope and likely cost of each study.

5.5       The gap-analysis report also presents the existing hazard information and identified areas of co-location and co-incidence of hazards. Predictably, the area with the highest co-location and co-incidence of natural hazards is the Residential Red Zone (RRZ).  However, there are other parts of Christchurch subject to a large number and/or high combined intensity of hazard impacts.  The gap-analysis assessment clearly indicates the importance of considering all hazards before considering the engineering, planning and policy options to address the associated risks. 

5.6       A decision is required from this meeting to progress the multi-hazard assessment project to Stage Two and Stage Three. Stage Two will be to commission the additional technical reports to satisfy the gaps in Council’s knowledge for stage three (the multi-hazard assessment).  Stage Three is the multi-hazard approach to be applied to the tidal reaches of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, the estuary of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, Sumner and the Styx River.  The results of the multi-hazard assessment will inform the development of the floodplain management plans for these areas.

5.7       The floodplain management plans will identify a range of options which will be used as a basis for community engagement and consultation.  Technical reports and drawings, but also non-technical summaries and easily understood graphics and other media will be prepared to enable effective communication and engagement with the wider community.


 

6.   Option 1 - Progress with Undertaking a Multi-Hazard Analysis (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Completing further technical studies on individual and ‘cascading’ hazards, and progressing the development of floodplain management plans using a multi-hazard approach.  The floodplain management plans will support decisions on how we manage land subject to flood risk, and where applicable, inform decisions on the future use of the Residential Red Zone.

6.2       Council staff are working closely with Regenerate Christchurch on a range of initiatives and all the results of the multi-hazard work will be made available to Regenerate Christchurch to help inform decision-making in the Residential Red Zone.  The multi-hazard information will also be used for any other regeneration plans or other relevant Council projects.

6.3       Extending the multi-hazard assessment approach to floodplain areas upstream of the tidal reaches of the Avon, Heathcote and Styx Rivers will be considered in the future.

6.4       A peer review panel will be formed to ensure that the multi-hazard analysis is technically sound for the purpose for which it is being developed.

6.5       The proposed scope of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme is to develop options for floodplain management, that is, managing the risks of flooding. The project will not develop options for reducing the risk from other hazards (e.g. liquefaction or tsunami). 

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of Option 1 is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.7       Community engagement will be an integral part of preparing the floodplain management plans.  Regenerate Christchurch will lead, with the support of Council, public engagement in the Residential Red Zone areas. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       Option 1 does not directly 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.  However, the development of floodplain management plans will require close consultation and engagement with Ngāi Tahu.

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       Many Christchurch communities have a strong interest in natural hazards, with this interest having increased following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.   Recent community engagement experience indicates that communities appreciate and respond positively to technically well-informed processes, and widely accessible and comprehensible information.  Initial discussions with Regenerate Christchurch suggest that there will be a range of favourable opportunities for joint public consultation and engagement on Residential Red Zone areas. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    The July 2016 ITE report (Ref. 16/644382) outlined the regulatory, policy and strategic framework within which a multi-hazard analysis would need to be developed. 

6.11    Option 1 is consistent with various Council plans and policies, and its natural hazard work programmes generally, and in particular the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.  Goal 4 Understanding of the Plan clearly states the need to understand our risks to be better prepared for future challenges.  Under Goal 4 there are three programmes of action that the Council and other organisations will focus on.  These are improve community understanding and acceptance of risk, manage the risks we face, and secure our future in the eastern parts of Christchurch.

Option 1 is also consistent with the Council’s role and involvement in the Regional Hazards Management Works Programme, and in particular the parts of the programme on regional research, and communication and engagement.  The programme of work was developed in 2015 under the Canterbury Policy Forum which is led by a multi-disciplinary Risk Reduction Working Group.

Selection of Option 1 would mean that the Council would be fulfilling its leadership role in developing knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, and implementing risk reduction measures.

Financial Implications

6.12    The technical information gap-analysis work, funded from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme operational budget, has cost about $220,000.  This includes Council staff costs.  The remainder of the project will also be funded from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme operational budget.

6.13    Seven additional studies have been identified as being required for the purpose of completing a multi-hazard assessment.  Accurate costings for the additional studies will not be known until a brief has been prepared for each study.  However, it is estimated that the additional studies will cost about $500,000 in total.  This cost includes Council staff costs.

6.14    Standard Council procurement processes will be followed for engaging consultants to complete the studies.  Approvals for each of the seven projects will be sought under current financial delegations.

6.15    The third stage of the project, which is the multi-hazard analysis and the preparation of floodplain management plans, is likely to cost about $500,000 additional to the studies in 6.13 above.  The total project cost, allowing for contingencies and staff costs, will be about $1.6M.

Legal Implications

6.16    The Council needs to meet its legal obligations for managing natural hazards under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, and Local Government Act 2002.  Current Council Land Drainage Recovery Programme work meets the relevant provisions of these statutes, and the multi-hazard assessment project will ensure that the Council continues to meet the statute provisions and to a high standard.

6.17    The Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 introduces a significant change in respect of natural hazards.  The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a new matter of national importance in section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991.  This means that the risks from natural hazards must be recognised and provided for as part of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. In contrast, the obligation to have particular regard to certain matters in section 7 requires those matters to be given genuine attention and thought, although they may still be ultimately rejected.  In short, when faced with competing considerations local authorities can now place greater weight on the management of significant risks from natural hazards.  It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the term “significant risk” in detail. However, the term is not defined in the Resource Management Act 1991 and is likely to be the subject of debate in the future.  Clarity may be provided through the new National Policy Statement for Natural Hazards which has an indicative date for completion of 2018.

6.18    A multi-hazard approach will also meet the requirements of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (2010) and specifically Policy 4:

Provide for the integrated management of natural and physical resources in the coastal environment, and activities that affect the coastal environment.  This requires: … c. particular consideration of situations where: … v. significant adverse cumulative effects are occurring, or can be anticipated.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    The delivery of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and specifically the development of floodplain management plans for the tidal reaches of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, the estuary of the Avon and Heathcote Rivers, Sumner and the Styx River, are likely to be hindered if there are delays in completing the additional technical gap-analysis studies.  This may expose some communities to the existing level of flood risk for a longer period.

6.19.1 Treatment: dedicated project management and regular programme reviews will be required to ensure timely delivery of the additional technical studies and subsequent project activities.

6.19.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium as the risk may not eventuate within the period of the LDRP due to the unpredictability of high intensity and/or long duration rainfall events, and/or any other contributing natural events.

6.20    Applying a multi-hazard framework to floodplain management planning is likely to lead to a more informed and appropriately engaged community, as well as better long-term decision-making.  However, the multi-hazard approach being undertaken will require extensive and innovative communication and engagement approaches.  Engagement with the community will be undertaken on the options developed within each floodplain management plan.  Attempting to achieve a consensus within respective floodplain communities may prolong the implementation of flood hazard mitigation decisions or even stymie any measures being implemented.

6.20.1 Treatment: when Council engages with communities on the Land Drainage Recovery Programme floodplain management plans the discussion will emphasise the multi-hazard approach rather than focusing only on the flood risk.

6.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high as some members of some communities are likely to be ‘disengaged’ from the outset because of lack of confidence in the Council and general distrust resulting from a long period of uncertainty. Others are likely to find the multi-hazard assessment approach complex and difficult to understand.

Implementation

6.21    The multi-hazard assessment project is reliant on the timely delivery of the technical studies (Stage Two) required to satisfy the gaps in the Council’s understanding of various hazards and related matters. It is anticipated that it will take about six months to complete the additional studies, and that Stage Three (the multi-hazard assessment) and the floodplain management plans is planned for completion by December 2018.

6.22    A contract is in place (with separable parts) to deliver the three stages of the multi-hazard project. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of Option 1 include:

·     A thorough and robust all-hazards basis for preparing floodplain management plans.

·     A fuller understanding of hazard exposure, impact and consequences, providing an improved understanding of total combined hazard risk, and greater clarity for the community regarding long-term planning and hazard management decisions.

·     Greater transparency and robustness in decision-making, and greater confidence and certainty for the community.

·     A reduction in the risk to the community from natural hazards, both in the short- to medium-term, and for future generations in the long-term.

·     Improved Civil Defence Emergency Management response capability based on realistic hazard risk scenarios.

·     The opportunity for sustainable planning and development decisions that are appropriate for both current and future generations.

·     Prudent and responsible use of the Council’s funds for the development of effective, long-term and sustainable hazard management approaches.

6.24    The disadvantages of Option 1 include:

·     Greater cost and an extended timeframe for implementing hazard mitigation options.

·     Probable additional community apprehension resulting from the uncertainty associated with the potential findings of the multi-hazards analysis, the cost, and the time required to complete the work.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Discontinue the multi-hazard assessment project and the preparation of the proposed floodplain management plans. 

Significance

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

7.3       No community engagement would be required as there would be no floodplain management plan options to discuss.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       Option 2 does not directly 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       Significant parts of Christchurch were subject to flood risk prior to the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.  Parts of Christchurch are now subject to greater flood risk as a result of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.  Coastal communities in particular have expressed concerns about the impact and consequences of natural hazards, and principally flooding, and have requested the Council to address both immediate post-Canterbury Earthquake Sequence exacerbated flood risk and longer-term flood risk.   Option 2 would not address these concerns.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       Option 2 is inconsistent with various Council plans and policies, and its natural hazard work programmes, and in particular the Resilient Greater Christchurch Plan.  Goal 4 Understanding of the Plan clearly states the need to understand our risks to be better prepared for future challenges.  Under Goal 4 there are three programmes of action that the Council and other organisations will focus on.  These are improve community understanding and acceptance of risk, manage the risks we face, and secure our future in the eastern parts of Christchurch.

7.7       Option 2 is also inconsistent with the Council’s role and involvement in the Regional Hazards Management Works Programme, and in particular the parts of the programme on regional research, and communication and engagement.  The programme of work was developed in 2015 under the Canterbury Policy Forum which is led by a multidisciplinary Risk Reduction Working Group.

7.8       A do nothing approach would mean that the Council would be failing in its leadership role in developing knowledge and understanding of natural hazards, and implementing risk reduction measures.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of implementation - none

7.10    Maintenance / ongoing costs - none

7.11    Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.12    While there is no requirement for the Council to prepare ‘floodplain management plans’, the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017 introduces a significant change in respect of natural hazards.  The management of significant risks from natural hazards is a new matter of national importance in section 6 of the Resource Management Act 1991.  This means that the risks from natural hazards must be recognised and provided for as part of the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.  Option 2 is inconsistent with the Resource Legislation Amendment Act 2017.

7.13    The Council also needs to meet its legal obligations for managing natural hazards under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, Resource Management Act 1991, Building Act 2004, and Local Government Act 2002. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    If the Council does not complete the additional technical studies and the multi-hazard assessment it will not have the knowledge required to prepare defendable floodplain management plans.  Although the preparation of floodplain management plans is not entirely conditional on a multi-hazard assessment, given the significant contribution of ‘other’ natural hazards to flood risk in parts of Christchurch, it would be remiss of the Council not to complete a multi-hazard assessment.

7.15    Significant investigations are required to develop a strong technical natural hazard information base to help inform decision-making.  Applying a 'single-hazard' approach within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme could possibly lead to poor decisions and perverse outcomes.  The cost of locating Council infrastructure in areas subject to high flood hazard risks may be financial (e.g. inappropriate engineering design, third party legal costs and cost of failure from another hazard), as well as reputational, political, economic, environmental and social.  Selecting the ‘do nothing’ option would not treat or manage this considerable risk. 

7.15.1 Treatment: No treatment is proposed.  Given the significance of the flood risk and intrinsic relationship of flooding with other natural hazards, preparing floodplain management plans without a multi-hazard assessment is considered highly undesirable.

7.15.2 Residual risk rating: Not applicable.

7.16    There is also a likely risk that the Council will not meet legislative requirements under various statutes.  This could present a wide range of significant implications for Council.

7.16.1 Treatment: As above.

7.16.2 Residual risk rating: As above.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies  - none

7.18    Implementation timeframe - immediate

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council avoids immediate and significant costs associated with undertaking the multi-hazard assessment, and the development of the floodplain management plans.

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Potential for inadequate floodplain management decisions leading to inappropriate infrastructure investment, and incompatible planning and development decisions.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LDRP 97 Multi-Hazard Gap Analysis Report (Final)

24

 

 

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

Thomas Parsons - Surface Water Engineering Consultant

Peter Kingsbury - Principal Advisor Natural Resources

Ian Wright - Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Sylvia MacLaren - Project Manager

Approved By

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

7.        Canterbury Regional Transport Committee and Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee Minutes (unconfirmed)

Reference:

17/655557

Contact:

Richard Osborne

richard.osborne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8407

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the minutes of the recent Canterbury Regional Transport Committee and the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the fact that these are minutes of a sub-regional and regional committee that CCC elected representatives are members of.

2.1.2   There was no community engagement in relation to this report.

 

3.   Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Notes the minutes of the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee and the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee. 

 

 

 

 

4.   Context/Background

There are a variety of sub-regional and regional committees that Council elected representatives are members of.  The decisions of these committees can impact on Council in a variety of ways.  It is therefore considered prudent for the minutes of these sub-regional/regional committees, that are relevant to the ITE Committee, be reported back so that their decisions can be socialised with other elected representatives.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Report to Regional Council from RTC Committee to agree minutes with Amendments

179

b

Unconfirmed minutes of the GCPT joint Committee 21 June 2017

185

 

 

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

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Tim Cheesebrough - Senior Transport Planner

Approved By

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

8.        Transport Unit - Bi-Monthly Report

Reference:

17/701352

Contact:

Chris Gregory

Chris.gregory@ccc.govt.nz

941 8324

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the attached report from the Transport Unit.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

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

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Generally the level of activity for the year was very high with a large number of projects commenced on–site since Christmas. The Major Cycleways Programme, Sumner Road and An Accessible City programme dominate the transport major projects portfolio.

3.2       Of note was the completion of the Little River and Papanui Cycleway routes to the programme completion dates ready for Ministerial openings.

3.3       Another significant success was the completion of Montreal Street and Bealy Avenue resurfacing contracts to a very ambitious timeframe at the end of the year. This work was delayed to avoid overlap with the Durham Street works and the creation of significant traffic impacts. The contractor managed to keep two lanes open at all times during the day and undertook a large amount of night work to achieve this target without any significant traffic disruption.

3.4       At the end of June the Transport Unit were managing a total of 298 projects of which 176 were in the execute phase. 120 of these projects are delivery packages that renew annually for works such as street light renewal and road resurfacing. 40 projects reached construction completion during the year.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2017-07-26 Transport Unit Bi-Monthly Report attachment

192

 

 

Signatories

Author

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

9.        Proposed Lower Styx, Marshland and Hawkins Road Intersection Improvement and widening of Marshland Road Bridge.

Reference:

17/523651

Contact:

Adrian Thein

Adrian.thein@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6549

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment (ITE) Committee to recommend to Council the staff proposal for Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road, Hawkins Road intersection improvement, and widening of Marshland Road Bridge. This report outlines the key changes and the rationale for the changes from the previously approved design.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result changes made to the previously approved improvements at the Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road, Hawkins Road intersection and the Marshland Road Bridge. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance is assessed as low as staff are asking Council to endorse a previous design option with a different orientation.

2.1.2   The community engagement is consistent with this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the staff proposal for the revised design for Marshlands Road, Lower Styx Road, Hawkins Road intersection improvement and widening of Marshland Road Bridge design (refer Appendix C & D).

2.         Approve that the intersection of Marshland Road, Lower Styx Road, Hawkins Road be controlled by traffic signals (lights); Marshland Road Bridge be widened; and the project proceed to final design, tender and construction as detailed in Appendix C & D.

3.         Request Staff to investigate and if feasible to proceed with the construction of the bridge widening works ahead of the intersection upgrade.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.10 Transport advice is provided to ensure plans, projects and activities reflect Council's strategic transport vision

4.1.2   Activity: Capital Programme ID 1347 Lower Styx / Marshlands Intersection Improvements and ID 913 Marshlands Road Bridge upgrade.

4.2       Council approved (15 October 2015) changes to the Lower Styx, Hawkins and Marshland Roads intersection and Marshlands Road Bridge improvements.

4.3       The discovery of a rare species of lamprey that use the Reserve Canal Drain as both a spawning and nesting sites has resulted in changes to the intersection. The lamprey holds a conservation status of “threatened – nationally vulnerable” and comes under the protection of Section 26ZJ of the Conservation Act.

4.4       A revised design was developed that shifts the intersection orientation and the bridge widening approximately 10 metres in the south west direction.  This design was completed in conjunction with Environment Canterbury (ECan), Department of Conservation (DoC), Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), to avoid the spawning and nesting site of the lamprey.

4.5       Based on the revised design this report confirms the additional land requirements of 3235 square meters from 5 properties.

4.6       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.6.1   Option 1 – Signalise intersection, allow all movements and widen bridge, in the revised orientation (preferred option).

4.6.2   Option 2 - Signalise intersection, allow all movements and widen bridge, in the originally approved orientation as approved at 15 October 2015 Council meeting (Appendix B).

4.6.3   Option 3 – Do nothing

4.7       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.7.1   The advantages of the preferred option include:

·    Addresses the intersection safety and capacity concerns, catering for pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Improves the resilience of the Marshland Road Bridge and provides adequate width to match the improved intersection layout.

·    Ability to fulfil the operative Plan Change 30 requirements to upgrade the Marshland Road, Lower Styx, Hawkins Road intersection.

·    Preserve the lamprey spawning and nesting sites along the Reserve Canal Drain.

4.7.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Temporary disruption to traffic flows during the construction phase.

·    Potential additional property cost.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Lower Styx and Marshland Road Intersection and Bridge Upgrade, Safety Improvements Project

5.1       Introduction

5.1.1   The existing intersection has restricted turning movements and inadequacies are compounded by the ongoing development in the north of Christchurch and Waimakariri District, including the nearby Prestons Development.

·    Marshlands Road Bridge over the Styx River is 50m south of the intersection and requires an upgrade to facilitate the improvements.

Following public consultation:

5.1.2   The previous Scheme Design approvals were received from Burwood / Pegasus and Shirley / Papanui Community Boards on 22 September 2015 and full Council on 15 October 2015 (Attachment A for full report, Attachment B,  Council Resolution)

5.1.3   Since receiving approval, the design team, has progressed the intersection and bridge design details to 80% complete.

5.1.4   During detail design an ecological survey during detail design phase identified the Reserve Canal Drain that runs parallel to Marshlands Road supports a rare species of lampreys. Further investigations with ECan, DoC, MKT and NIWA identified that the Reserve Canal Drain is spawning and rearing site for the lamprey. DoC noted that lamprey have a conservation status of “Threatened – Nationally Vulnerable” and comes under the protection of Section 26ZJ of the Conservation Act. 

5.1.5   Designs were developed in conjunction with DoC, NIWA, ECan and MKT. This resulted in five different options being explored using a multi criteria analysis. The Opus Report (Attachment C), in particular pages 25, 26 and embedded Appendix G within that report outlines the design and consultation process with Doc, NIWA and ECan. The current preferred design which minimised the impacts to the lamprey’s habitat has been endorsed by MKT, DoC, NIWA and ECan.

5.1.6   An updated independent road safety audit has been completed and endorsed the revised design with no serious severity concerns noted.

5.1.7   The following changes were made to the intersection layout:

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Signalise intersection, allow all movements and widen bridge, in the revised orientation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To proceed with finalising detail design of the revised preferred design (Attachment D) and associated property acquisition process.

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 low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

6.5       Liaison with MKT on the waterway works and lamprey protections is complete and they are in support of this option. Key focus for the local IWI is the protection of the lamprey nesting and spawning site.

6.6       Relocation or removal of the cabbage tree located on 548 Marshland Road, require further investigations.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Land owners of 550, 548 Marshland Road, 9a Lower Styx Road, 794, 784 Hawkins Road, are specifically affected by this option due to land acquisition process and have been consulted with.

6.8       This options requires the relocation / removal of the “scheduled significant tree” listed cabbage tree (under the District Plan) located at 548 Marshland Road. Preliminary investigations are underway on the logistics and relocation costs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – is consistent with current funding allowance in CPMS 913 and 1347, $1,689,240 and $5,053,080 with a combined total of $6,742,320, outlined in the current LTP.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – allowance has been made for future maintenance.

6.12    Funding source - as per project funding allowances in CPMS 913 and 1347, $1,689,240 and $5,053,080 with a combined total of $6,742,320, outlined in the current LTP. Noted also NZTA funding will be applied for the final design and construction phase of this project. Funding for the scheme and part of the detail design have been received by NZTA.

Legal Implications

6.13    Upgrading this intersection is also required as part of the Plan Change 30 included within the City Plan.

6.14    Land use consents, building consents and various authorisation requirements have been identified and will be confirmed in the final design phase.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.15    Potential unwilling property sellers at the any of the affected properties. The mitigation strategy would be initiating the formal acquisition statuary process under the PWA process.

6.16    Further investigation is required for the removal and or relocation of the “scheduled significant tree” (cabbage tree) located on 548 Marshland Road.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies it is expected that both the intersection and bridge project will be tendered and constructed as a single package. If property purchases is delayed there is an option with proceeding the construction of the bridge widening ahead of the intersection upgrade.

6.18    Implementation timeframe it is expected start to construction targeted for January 2018, for a period of 18 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·    Addresses the intersection safety and capacity concerns, catering for pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Improves resilience of the Marshland Bridge and provide adequate width to match the improved intersection layout.

·    Completion of the intersection improvements in accordance with Plan Change 30.

·    Preserve the lamprey spawning and nesting sites along the Reserve Canal Drain.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Temporary disruption to traffic flows during the construction phase.

·    Removal or relocation of the protected cabbage tree.

·    Potential additional property costs.


 

7.   Option 2 - Signalise intersection, allow all movements and widen bridge, in the originally approved orientation as at 15 October 2015 Council meeting

Option Description

7.1       To proceed with the construction of the original proposed design, as outlined in the 22 September 2015 community board meeting.

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 low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       This scheme has been publically consulted on in June / July 2015 and endorsed by the Burwood / Pegasus and Shirley / Papanui Community Boards on 22 September 2015 and full Council on 15 October 2015.

7.6       DoC, MKT, NIWA are specifically affected by this option due to the loss of the spawning and nesting sites of the rare species of Lamprey.  The Department of Conservation is the controlling authority under the Wildlife Act 1953, to which the lampreys comes under. This option is not supported by MKT, NIWA, ECan and DoC, with a prosecution likely under Section 26ZJ of the Conservation Act if this option is constructed.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7.1   Inconsistency – unable to complete the intersection and bridge safety improvements.  Works.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – this option does not meet this requirement.

7.7.3   Amendment necessary – not applicable.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – as per the current funding allowance in CPMS 913 and 1347, $1,689,240 and $5,053,080 with a combined total of $6,742,320, outlined in the current LTP.

7.9       Maintenance / ongoing costs – allowance has been made for future maintenance.

7.10    Funding source - as per project funding allowances in CPMS 913 and 1347, $1,689,240 and $5,053,080 with a combined total of $6,742,320, outlined in the current LTP. Noted also NZTA funding will be applied for the final design and construction phase of this project. Funding for the scheme and part of the detail design have been received by NZTA.

Legal Implications

7.11    Upgrading this intersection is also required as part of Plan Change 30, included within the City Plan.

7.12    Potential prosecution by DoC under Section 25ZJ of the Wildlife Act 1952.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    Unlikely to receive Resource Consents due to non-complying activity under the Wildlife Act 1953 administered by Department of Conservation. This may also result in a fine from DoC.

7.14    Non-compliance resulting from Plan Change 30.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·    Reduce amount of private land required to complete the intersection safety improvement works.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Loss of spawning and nesting habitat for the lampreys.

·    Inability to complete the intersection safety improvement works.

·    Potential prosecution by DOC.


 

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       This option is to do noting and leave the existing intersection and bridge in its current state.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       This option involves a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       This option contradicts the prior public consultation process that occurred in June / July 2015.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – unable to complete the intersection and bridge safety improvements.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – this option does not meet this requirement.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – not applicable.

Financial Implications

8.7       No additional cost of implementation, with the exception of the costs incurred to date.

8.8       Maintenance / ongoing costs changes and will increase over time due to incremental

Legal Implications

8.9       Upgrading this intersection is required as part of Plan Change 30, included within the City Plan and by do nothing this option contradict the approved City Plan.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.10    Negative public perception by not delivering on approved scheme.

8.11    Safety issues of the intersection and bridge are not addressed.

8.12    Non-compliance of consent conditions relating to Plan Change 30.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

8.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.15    The advantages of this option include:

·    No work required

8.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Inability to complete the intersection safety improvement works

·    Safety implications

·    Not meeting consent conditions of Plan Change 30

·    Reputational impact of not delivering on consulted scheme.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hawkins / Lower Styx / Marshland Intersection and Bridge Upgrade, Originally Approved 22 Sep 15 Oct 2015

219

b

Council Resolution, 15 October 2015

235

c

Hawkins / Lower Styx / Marshland Intersection & Bridge Upgrade, Revised Options Report

238

d

Revised Preferred Design

392

 

 

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

Adrian Thein - Project Manager

Janis Peterson - Business Administrator

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

PDF Creator

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

10.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

26 July 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

11

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 7 June 2017

 

 

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

 

12

Lower Styx, Marshland and Hawkins Road Intersection Improvement and Widening of Marshland Road Bridge - Property Acquisitions

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(g), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Conduct Negotiations

To conduct commercial negotiations and maintain legal privilege

Following the completion of the acquisition of the properties

13

Award of City Wide Road Maintenance Contracts

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

This report is of a sensitive commercial nature.

Following contract award.