Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 3 July 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

29 June 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

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

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

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

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 4

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 5 

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 15  

STAFF REPORTS

B       8.       St Andrews Hill Road / Bridle Path Road / Main Road Intersection Consultation Feedback......................................................................................................................... 17

C       9.       Clifton Terrace, Clifton - Proposed Parking Improvements....................................... 31

C       10.     Ruru Road Bromley - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions........................................ 41

C       11.     Roxburgh Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.............................................. 49

C       12.     433 St Asaph Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction.................... 57

C       13.     Property Review Process.............................................................................................. 65

C       14.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................. 105

B       15.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 114 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 14 June 2017 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes may be available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

It is intended that the public forum session will be held at <Approximate Time>

OR

There will be no public forum at this meeting

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

5.1

Englefield Residents Group

Irinka Britnell will speak on behalf of Englefield Residents Group regarding the work and needs of the Englefield Neighbourhood.

 

5.2

Linwood Park

Greg Rawlinson will speak on issues relating to Linwood Park.

 

5.3

St Andrews Hill/Bridge Path/Main Road Intersection

The following residents will speak to the Board regarding the St Andrews Hill/Bridle Path Road Intersection.  Item 8 of this agenda refers.

 

1.    Jennie Bridges, resident of St Andrews Hill.

2.    Mike Morrison, resident.

 

5.4

Clifton Terrace

Mr Justin Prain, resident, will speak on to the Board regarding Clifton Terrace Proposed Parking Improvements Report on this agenda.  Clause 9 of this agenda refers.

 

5.5

Ruru Road, Bromley – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Mr Jerry O’Neil, business owner, will speak to the Board regarding Ruru Road, Bromley – Proposed No Stopping Restriction. Clause 10 of this agenda refers.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 14 June 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

13 June 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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00057

Part C

That the apology for absence from Tim Lindley be accepted.

Jake McLellan/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00058

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 29  May 2017 be confirmed.

Jake McLellan/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated

             The scheduled deputation did not attend.

 

4.2       Englefield Residents Group

             The scheduled deputation did not attend.

 

4.3       Roimata Community Food Hub

             Michael Reynolds and Aaron Clifft spoke regarding the development of the Roimata Community Food Hub within Radley Park.   They sought the Board’s support for a community food hub being established in Radley Park.  The deputation was advised that the Board will be signing the Edible Canterbury Charter in July 2017.

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00059

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Supports the Roimata Community Food Hub deputation and their plan for developing a community food hub in Radley Park.

2.         Requests staff to investigate reinstating a playground in Radley Park.

3.         Requests comments from the Council’s Animal Control Unit regarding having the fenceless dog park and cycleway in Radley Park.

4.         Requests staff to provide information on how friends of Edmonds Gardens operates.

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

4.4       Naval Point Boat Safety Association

             Roger Allen and Eden Husband of the Naval Point Boat Security and Safety Association provided information to the Board on the Association’s plan to install further safety improvements for recreational boat users of Naval Point, Lyttelton.

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00060

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Supports Naval Point Boat Safety Association in principle, based on the information provided by the deputation.

2.         Thank Roger Allen and Eden Husband for their deputation.

Darrell Latham/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00061 (Staff Recommendation adopted without change).

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information in the correspondence report dated 14 June 2017.

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

7.   Response to Petition for School Speed Zones

 

Board Consideration

The Board noted the information in the report however, the Board are concerned about the safety of families going to and from St Annes and Te Waka Unua Schools while crossing Ferry Road.

 

Staff Recommendation:

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    receive the information in this report.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00062

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the report.

2.         Requests staff to investigate and report back to the Board on the timeline for installation of a school speed zone for St Anne’s School separate from the Ferry Road Master Plan projects.

3.         Requests staff to work with Linwood Ave School to investigate how to slow down and stop drivers using the Linwood Avenue School slipway as a shortcut to Aldwins Road traffic lights.

Yani Johanson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2017/00063

Community Board Recommendation

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Requests that the Council bring forward the funding and delivery of Ferry Road Master Plan FR4 project to increase safety for students of  Te Waka Unua crossing Ferry Road.  

Yani Johanson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

8.   404 Tuam Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00064 (Staff Recommendation adopted without change.)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes at any time on the south side of Tuam Street commencing at a point 25 metres east of its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in an eastern direction for six metres.

Alexandra Davids/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

9.   284 Kilmore Street - Proposed Loading Zone

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00065 (Staff Recommendations adopted without change).

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revokes the existing P120 parking restriction on the south side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 48 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

2.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum of five minutes, for goods vehicles only on south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 48 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an eastern direction for 11 metres.

3.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum of 120 minutes on south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 59 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an eastern direction for 16 metres.

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

10. 340 Selwyn Street - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00066 (Staff Recommendations adopted without change).

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revokes the existing No Stopping Restriction on the east side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for 37 metres.

2.         Approves the No Stopping Restriction on the east side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for 81 metres.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

11. Inglis Street Phillipstown - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00067 (Staff Recommendation adopted without change).

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Inglis Street commencing at a point 63 metres east of its intersection with Mathesons Road and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres.

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

12. Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund for Manahi Wawatai,Devante Wawatai and Ethan Te Pune

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00068 (Staff Recommendations adopted without change).

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Manahi Wawatai towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

2.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Devante Wawatai towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

3.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/13 Youth Development Fund to Ethan Te Pune towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

Sara Templeton/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                Carried

 

13. Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Shoreline Youth Trust - Shoreline Leadership Development

 

Staff Recommendation:

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $8,000 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Shoreline Youth Trust towards Shoreline Leadership Development.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00069

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $5,000 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Shoreline Youth Trust towards Shoreline Leadership Development.

Yani Johanson/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnson requested that her vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

14. Application to Discretionary Response Fund from Woolston Development Project

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00070 (Staff Recommendation adopted without change).

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $5000 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Woolston Development Project towards Emergency Financial Assistance.

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

Meeting adjourned at 12.04pm. 

Meeting reconvened at 12.11pm.

 

15. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the Area Update.

2.         Provides comment to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 29 June 2017 meeting on the Heathcote Expressway.

3.         Agrees to extend the period for Neighbourhood Week functions to occur from Friday 27 October 2017 to the end of March 2018 and acknowledge the change of name to “Summer with your Neighbours”.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00071

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the Area Update.

2.         Holds a seminar/workshop on 23 June 2017 to formulate the Board’s recommendation on the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route. 

3.         Delegates to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to sign off the Board’s recommendations on the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Route.

4.         Agrees that there be no change to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Neighbourhood Week.

5.         Agree to sign the Edible Canterbury Charter.

Sara Templeton/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                Carried

 

16. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Part B

The Board received and noted the following information from members:

1.    Homeless Drop In - The Board discussed the situation with the homeless in the city, particularly in the Inner City East and Linwood Village area.  The Board noted that the Mayor’s recommendations on the Draft Annual Plan would be made public before the end of the week.  The Board noted disappointment if the recommendation is for there to be no funding allocated to a drop in centre for the homeless, and will discuss in the future about their recommendation for funding they had requested be moved from funding Sumner Changing Sheds to fund costs related to setting up a drop-in centre. 

2.    Sydenham Quarter – the Board discussed the issue of the transitional projects in Sydenham being dismantled and that the Sydenham Quarter wish to have the tree planters remain but the Quarter does not have the resources to buy the planter boxes.

3.    Housing Accord – The Board were advised that the Council has signed a Housing Accord.

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 12.45pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14th DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/679332

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Valerie Fletcher & Scott Babington

St Andrews Hill/Bridle Path/Main Road Intersection

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Correspondence Report dated 03 July 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence from Dr V Fletcher & Scott Babington relating to St Andrews Hil/Bridle Path/Main Road Instersection

16

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

8.        St Andrews Hill Road / Bridle Path Road / Main Road Intersection Consultation Feedback

Reference:

17/477618

Contact:

Neil Gillon

neil.gillon@ccc.govt.nz

Enter phone.

 

 

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 be informed of the options considered for the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road/Main Road intersection and to provide feedback on the consultation undertaken.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board (now Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board) resolution HFCB/2016/00084 in part (of 3 May 2016), which states, “Request staff provide further information on the installation of traffic lights at the intersection and on the options to change the intersection including the topography”.

2.   Significance

2.1       The adoption of an alternative intersection option from that which already exists is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by undertaking an assessment using the worksheet template for significance 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:

1.         Receives the information on the consultation undertaken within the community on the options for traffic control at the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road/Main Road intersection.

 

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 – New traffic signals on St Andrews Hill Road and new pre-signals on Bridle Path Road (preferred option through consultation)

·     Option 2 – No right turn to Main Road from Bridle Path Road (least preferred option through consultation)

·     Option 3 – Do nothing (second preferred option through consultation)

4.3       Option Summary

4.3.1   Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 1 - Preferred Option)

·     The advantages of this option include:

·     Safe egress for all traffic from St Andrews Hill Road with traffic stopped on Bridle Path Road at the pre-signals and traffic stopped on Ferry Road and Main Road

·     Long-term modelling indicated that traffic lights on St Andrews Hill Road will be required

·     The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Close proximity of pre-signals on Bridle Path Road to signals at the Ferry Road/Main Road intersection may cause confusion to drivers stopped at the pre-signals location

·     Compliance with pre-signals may be limited giving risk to traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road

·     Minor delays to traffic in Bridle Path Road, Main Road and Ferry Road as a result of an additional phase of traffic signals for St Andrews Hill Road traffic.

·     Capital funding required is not in the current LTP

4.3.2   Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 2 – Least Preferred Option)

·     The advantages of this option include:

·     Traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road not in conflict with two-directional traffic on Bridle Path Road.  Required to give way to traffic approaching from Main Road or Ferry Road only

·     Right turn to Main Road and left turn to Ferry Road possible for traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road

·     The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No right turn to Main Road for traffic approaching from Bridle Path Road, therefore Bridle Path Road has a lower level of service

·     Weaving of traffic on Ferry Road west of the intersection with Bridle Path Road as a result of two left turn lanes out of Bridle Path Road

·     Traffic wanting to travel east from Bridle Path Road is required to find alternative routes

·     Capital funding required is not in the current LTP

4.3.3   Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 3 – Second Preferred Option)

·     The advantages of this option include:

·     No capital cost

·     No additional delays to traffic on Main Road, Ferry Road or Bridle Path Road

·     The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No improvement to traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current situation

5.1       Bridle Path Road forms a “T” intersection with Main Road and both legs are controlled with traffic signals.  St Andrews Hill Road forms a priority controlled (Give Way) “T” intersection with Bridle Path Road in very close proximity to Main Road.  The yellow cross-hatching on Bridle Path Road at the St Andrews Hill Road intersection indicates that no vehicles may stop within the cross-hatched area.  A right-turn movement from Bridle Path Road to St Andrews Hill Road is prevented.

Intersection design

5.2       The intersection design was developed as part of the project for the replacement of the Ferrymead Bridge and the associated widening of Main Road to four traffic lanes.

5.3       The design diverted St Andrews Hill Road traffic from a direct exit onto Main Road to an intersection with Bridle Path Road.  This was done because early in the design phase the direct exit onto Main Road was identified as a significant safety risk, because of exits from Bridle Path Road and St Andrews Hill Road onto Main Road being in close proximity. 

5.4       The original design also excluded a right turn from Bridle Path Road onto Main Road.  Following consultation on the Ferry Road Master Plan (2012/13) and the Main Road Master Plan (2013), the intersection was redesigned with a signalised right turn from Bridle Path Road onto Main Road.

Community concerns

5.5       Community concerns were raised at a community meeting on 9 February 2016 and these were addressed in a report to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board of 3 May 2016.

5.6       The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment (ITE) Committee, at its meeting of 2 June 2016, received the report of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting of 3 May 2016 and also considered a deputation from Sara Templeton, Chairperson of the Community Board and an email from a member of the community, in lieu of deputation.  The ITE Committee requested staff to investigate as a priority options to improve the usability and safety of the intersection at Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill Road, particularly the turning from St Andrews Hill Road, and report back to the Committee (ITEC/2016/00040).

Consultation process

5.7       ITE Committee members and the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board were invited to a meeting in the Council Chambers on 3 August 2016.  At that meeting the members and staff discussed the options that could be considered.  As a result of this discussion staff developed three options for the intersection that would be presented to the community for consultation.  These options were for traffic signals at St Andrews Hill Road and pre-signals on Bridle Path Road, a right hand turn ban from Bridle Path Road to Main Road, and the do nothing option.  The Community Board was briefed on the options on 19 September 2016 prior to consultation commencing.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – New traffic signals on St Andrews Hill Road and new pre-signals on Bridle Path Road (community preferred)

Option Description

6.1       New traffic signals on St Andrews Hill Road to replace the existing Give Way signs, and new pre-signals on Bridle Path Road south of the intersection with St Andrews Hill Road.  Traffic on Bridle Path Road will wait for traffic to exit from St Andrews Hill Road when the pre-signals are showing red.  Traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road will be able to exit safely without traffic approaching from Main Road or Ferry Road.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements are consistent for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Wednesday 25 January 2017 to Friday 27 February 2017.

6.6       The consultation leaflets were hand delivered to properties on St Andrews Hill, and Heathcote.  The leaflet was also sent to 160 key stakeholders, 445 absentee landowners and was also distributed through the Lyttelton Harbour Network.  An advert was displayed in the Bay Harbour News on Wednesday 8 February advising of the consultation.  Two drop in sessions were held, one in Mt Pleasant and the other in Heathcote, these were attended by approximately 70 people across the two sessions.

6.7       During the course of the engagement, Council received 640 submissions with the following results:

OPTION

NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS

Option 1 – Intersection as it is

225

Option 2 – New traffic signals on St Andrews Hill Road and new pre-signals on Bridle Path Road

372

Option 3 – No right turn from Bridle Path Road

20

No comment

23

 

6.8       A large amount of written feedback was received through the submission process with feedback categorised into the following themes:

6.8.1   Accessibility – some submitters are concerned that there is no right turn from Bridle Path Road into St Andrews Hill Road.  Some drivers currently make a U-turn at the Main Road intersection and turn left into St Andrews Hill Road.

6.8.2   Alternative options – a number of alternative options were provided and these have been responded to in more detail below.

6.8.3   Cost - submitters who supported option 1, in some cases, were also concerned about the cost of changing the layout when the current design works fine.

6.8.4   Oppose removal of right hand turn – a number of submissions outlined what the impact of removing the right hand turn would have on them.  This option is reflected in the low level of support for this option.

6.8.5   Safety (cyclists) – a number of submitters who cycle through this intersection raised concerns about the safety of cyclists within the current layout.  There have been incidences of cyclists being cut off by vehicles heading up St Andrews Hill and the general safety of cyclists within this intersection. An issue with the safety of cyclists crossing Bridle Path Road from St Andrews Hill Road has been addressed.  However, the concern being raised by submitters is the result of driver behaviour towards cyclists, not unique to this intersection.

6.8.6   Safety (driver behaviour) – submitters highlighted a number of experiences with the current layout that are a result of driver behaviour, e.g., car blocking access, speeding vehicles along Bridle Path Road.

6.8.7   Safety (near misses) – a number of local residents raised situations where they have had a near miss while commuting through the current layout, a number of these submissions also mentioned that traffic lights would help make the intersection safer and avoid the near misses.

6.8.8   Safety (visibility) – visibility, especially while exiting St Andrews Hill Road and cars turning left from Main Road onto Bridle Path Road, was a key issue raised by a number of submissions, which could sometimes lead to an unsafe manoeuvre.

6.8.9   Signage and marking – feedback was received about the possibility of putting more signage on Bridle Path Road, judder bars on Bridle Path Road or hatching at the intersection.  These suggestions have been responded to in more detail below.

6.9       Several submitters also provided suggested alternative options for the intersection layout.  These alternative suggestions were considered and evaluated by the project team.  A summary of the alternatives and the evaluation is provided below:

Alternative option proposed (summarised)

Number of respondents who provided this as a suggested alternative

Traffic calming on Bridle Path Road – Give Way sign, speed humps, signage, extension of hatching

8

Two left turn lanes and one right turn lane out of Bridle Path Road

6

Roundabout intersection

5

Close St Andrews Hill Road exit and divert traffic to Ferrymead Terrace

2

Construct two separate intersections onto Main Road, one for Bridle Path Road and one for St Andrews Hill Road

2

Ban left turn from Main Road into Bridle Path Road

1

 

Many of these alternative options, or variations of these options, had been previously identified and evaluated during previous reviews and evaluations.

Traffic calming on Bridle Path Road – traffic compliance of the Give Way on Bridle Path Road prior to the existing traffic signals could be an issue, either from drivers ignoring the sign, or missing it altogether due to its close proximity to the traffic signals.  Traffic calming implementation (speed humps, signs, etc.) may provide some benefit for traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road, provided there is good compliance with the traffic calming measures.  This option does not fully address all of the safety concerns related to exiting St Andrews Hill Road.  Main areas of concern with this option – driver compliance, safety, and does not address all community concerns.

Two left turn lanes and one right turn lane – ensuring drivers remain in their lanes during the turn may be problematic and significant weaving of traffic would occur on Ferry Road prior to Humphreys Drive, as drivers position themselves to continue along Ferry Road.  The right turn lane out of Bridle Path Road would still have very little stacking length and would continue to have potential to block St Andrews Hill Road traffic from entering the intersection.  Repositioning the right turn lane to the island position will be a very difficult turn (if not impossible) for buses and other vehicles turning from St Andrews Hill Road into this right turn lane.  Main areas of concern with this option – driver compliance, safety and vehicle tracking.

Roundabout – the footprint required for a roundabout would be too large for this constrained site (limited by the Heathcote River, bridge and adjacent topography).  A roundabout would not address the limited stacking space available on Bridle Path Road (before the Main Road traffic signals), and may even reduce the stacking length due to the space needed for the roundabout.  Main areas of concern with this option – available footprint, intersection efficiency and performance.

Close St Andrews Hill Road and use Ferrymead Terrace – the standard of Ferrymead Terrace is not sufficient to accommodate all St Andrews downhill traffic, and could not be upgraded to an acceptable standard.  In addition the sight visibility out of Ferrymead Terrace on to Bridle Path Road is restricted by topography and would not meet acceptable standards required for increased traffic volume.  Main areas of concern with this option – road standard and safety.

Two separate intersections – this layout is not standard and as such will not be intuitive for drivers.  This arrangement also introduces serious safety issues resulting from the two right turn movements into separate intersections from the same right turn lane (i.e. faster moving traffic turning into St Andrews Hill Road colliding into the back of slower moving traffic turning into Bridle Path Road).  This intersection arrangement would be larger than the current arrangement and result in loss of efficiency primarily due to the clearance time required after phases, particularly for cyclists and pedestrians, to clear the intersection.  Continuity of facilities for cyclists and pedestrians would also be difficult to maintain with this layout.  Main areas of concern with this option – safety, intersection efficiency and performance, and provisions for non-motorised users.

6.10    A letter has been sent to all submitters advising of the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Community Board meeting, and how they can speak to their submission if they wish.  Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback received, decision making process and Community Board report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – $225,000 (estimate)

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $10,000 per annum

6.14    Funding source – This option is not included in the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Legal Implications

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

6.16    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 does not include the resolution of traffic signals due to their metropolitan significance.  It follows that should the Community Board wish to advance this option then this should be via a recommendation to Council.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    A safety audit has been undertaken of the two alternative options (Options 1 and 2).

6.18    Risk associated with both options:

6.18.1    Risk:                   A 14.5 metre long rigid bus with two rear axles is not able to navigate the existing or proposed intersection layouts without significant modifications needed to traffic islands and limit line positions.  The topographical constraints of the site limit the ability to provide an intersection for all vehicle types which has been acknowledged previously and accepted.

6.18.2    Treatment:     The mitigation for this is that bus sizes would need to be restricted or that the traffic islands would need to be modified.  The feasibility of the latter option has not been assessed nor included in the cost estimate.

6.19    Risk associated with the traffic signals option:

6.19.1    Risk:                   The advanced limit line, the first one reached by motorists driving along Bridle Path Road, may not be adhered to during off-peak times.  Motorists may, on receiving a red signal, proceed forward to the second limit line at the intersection with Main Road.  These motorists may not appreciate that traffic from St Andrews Hill Road will have priority.  This situation may result in a vehicle traveling from St Andrews Hill Road conflicting with a vehicle ignoring the pre-signals.

6.19.2    Treatment:     The mitigation for this is to consider installing louvres on the signals at the Main Road intersection to limit visibility from the advanced limit line.  Installation of red-light cameras may also be considered.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies – The implementation of this option is dependent on Council approval and finance being made available in the LTP.

6.21    Implementation timeframe – The work can be programmed to start in the financial year that finance is allocated.  It is estimated that the option can be completed within one financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·     Safe egress for all traffic from St Andrews Hill Road with traffic stopped on Bridle Path Road at the pre-signals and traffic stopped on Ferry Road and Main Road

·     Long-term modelling indicated that traffic lights on St Andrews Hill Road will be required

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Close proximity of pre-signals on Bridle Path Road to signals at the Ferry Road/Main Road intersection may cause confusion to drivers stopped at the pre-signals location

·     Compliance with pre-signals may be limited giving risk to traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road

·     Minor delays to traffic in Bridle Path Road, Main Road and Ferry Road as a result of an additional phase of traffic signals for St Andrews Hill Road traffic.

·     Capital funding required is not in the current LTP

7.   Option 2 – No right turn from Bridle Path Road to Main Road

Option Description

7.1       This option prevents a right turn for Bridle Path Road traffic onto Main Road by enlarging the footprint of the existing traffic island and extending it through to Main Road. The right turn lane is dedicated to traffic exiting from St Andrews Hill Road.  Traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road will still need to give way to traffic approaching from the right.  Traffic on Bridle Path Road wishing to travel east will need to use alternative routes.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements are consistent for this level of significance.

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 specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Refer 6.5 – 6.10 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $235,000 (estimate)

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No additional maintenance costs

7.9       Funding source - This option is not included in the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan (LTP).

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Refer to paragraphs 6.12 and 6.13 above.  Paragraph 6.13 refers to risks associated with both options.

7.12    Risks associated with the no right turn from Bridle Path Road option include:

7.12.1    Signals control cabinet

·   Risk:                   For vehicles exiting St Andrews Hill Road, the signals control cabinet near the Main Road intersection obscures visibility of traffic coming from Sumner.

·   Treatment:     It is acknowledged that the visibility of traffic coming from Sumner is significantly restricted due to topographical constraints.  There would only be a slight visibility improvement received from reducing the height, or relocating the control cabinet.  This improvement is considered insignificant to warrant the cost of lowering or relocation of the cabinet.

7.12.2    Removal of right turn for cyclists

·   Risk:                   Lack of provision for right-turning cyclists from Bridle Path Road is likely to result in cyclists crossing over to access the turn lane (from St Andrews Hill Road) or trying to turn from the left turn lane, which may be in conflict with other turn movements.

·   Treatment:     The right turn ban out of Bridle Path Road is for all road users.  Cyclists need to take alternative routes which may include dismounting and walking their bicycle using the signalised pedestrian routes.  Way-finding signage for cyclists could be considered by Council as part of the wider coastal cycleway route.

7.12.3    Downstream weave

·   Risk:                   The left turn lane and the shared right / left turn lane from Bridle Path Road will likely run together.  It can be assumed that a greater proportion of drivers exiting Bridle Path Road will travel along Ferry Road (rather than Humphreys Drive).  To this end, drivers from St Andrews Hill Road will need to move into the left lane and increased weaving may occur.  Weave lengths that are too short or insufficient gaps will increase the risk of side swipe crashes.

·   Treatment:     The final design will need to consider this for marking of lanes.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies – The implementation of this option is dependent on finance being made available in the LTP.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – The work can be programmed to start in the financial year that finance is allocated.  It is estimated that the option can be completed within one financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·     Traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road not in conflict with two-directional traffic on Bridle Path Road.  Required to give way to traffic approaching from Main Road or Ferry Road only.

·     Right turn to Main Road and left turn to Ferry Road possible for traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No right turn to Main Road for traffic approaching from Bridle Path Road.

·     Bridle Path Road has a lower level of service.

·     Weaving of traffic on Ferry Road west of the intersection with Bridle Path Road as a result of two left turn lanes out of Bridle Path Road.

·     Traffic wanting to travel east from Bridle Path Road is required to find alternative routes.

·     Capital funding required that is not in the current LTP

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       This option leaves the intersection as it is.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low which differs from Section 2 of this report.  The level of significance in Section 2 refers to an alternative option being adopted.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       Refer 6.5 – 6.10 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.8       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

8.9       There are no legal implications with the do nothing option.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    There are no risks associated with this option other than risks which currently exist.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·     No capital cost

·     No additional delays to traffic on Main Road, Ferry Road or Bridle Path Road

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No improvement to traffic exiting St Andrews Hill Road.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Options 1 & 2: Before and after views (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Option 1: Signals and pre-signals plan view

28

c

Option 2: No right turn plan view

29

 

 

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

Neil Gillon - Senior Project Manager

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

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

03 July 2017

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

9.        Clifton Terrace, Clifton - Proposed Parking Improvements

Reference:

17/612181

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note:

1.1       The Board previously considered this report at its 17 May 2017 meeting.  It was decided to let the report lie on the table pending the Board having a site visit to Clifton Terrace.  The Board had a site visit on 3 July 2017.

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider parking improvements along part of the south side of Clifton Terrace as shown in Attachment A.

2.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

2.3       This report is staff generated in response to a request from a local resident at 3 The Spur.

3.   Significance

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

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

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

 

4.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Install Parking Ticks to mark four individual parking spaces within the unmarked bay adjacent to 11 Clifton Terrace.

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

1.1                        The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install Parking Ticks only for four individual spaces (Preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Install Residents Parking Restriction

·     Option 3 – Do nothing

1.2                        Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

5.1.2   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the efficiency of the use of roadside space for the parking of standard size vehicles

·     Retains the availability of parking spaces for all users

5.1.3   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Does not guarantee a dedicated space for residents

·     A long vehicle (e.g. with a trailer) would occupy two spaces and affect the overall capacity of the bay

 

6.   Context/Background

6.1       The resident at no.3 The Spur has expressed concern on behalf of local residents about the difficulties in finding available parking spaces. This property is one of several addresses along The Spur and Clifton Terrace that do not have parking opportunities within their property and rely on parking on-street within a reasonable walking distance.

6.2       It is also evident that other nearby properties rely on street parking for their additional personal vehicles, visitors and tradesmen’s’ vehicles.

6.3       Clifton Terrace is classified as a local road, is generally quite narrow and subject to a series of tight bends and a steep gradient. For the majority of its length there are no stopping restrictions on both sides.

6.4       Council staff have visited the site on several occasions at different times of day. Parking opportunities on Clifton Terrace are limited, though it was observed that during the day turnover does occur and spaces become available periodically, since some residents are retired and are used intermittently and tradesmen’s vehicles leave to collect materials or between sites.

6.5       There is an unmarked parking bay within the road reserve that is used for parking a present, located adjacent to no.11 Clifton Terrace. This has been identified as the preferred location for residents only parking.

6.6       There is also another on-street parking opportunity on Clifton Terrace, located approximately 60m further northwest of the site. This is situated adjacent to a new terraced bank stability area and has unmarked space for approximately 4 vehicles.

6.7       However, this bay is also used by residents, visitors and tradesmen’s vehicles and is considered an excessive distance by the residents requesting this facility, who are mainly elderly and required to walk further along the relatively steep slope on Clifton Terrace.


 

7.   Option 1 – Install Parking Ticks for individual bays

Option Description

7.1       This would consist of marking out individual bays within the unmarked area currently used for parking, in accordance with Attachment A.

7.2       No vehicle or time restrictions would be in effect.

7.3       This option provides four standard car lengths of parking space on the street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       The consultation was based on restricting the same area for a Residents Permit Only, and therefore this option was not explicitly specified. However, one resident did refer to the marking of spaces as being at least an improvement compared to the current parking arrangement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       Council already have a policy related to Kerbside Parking Limit Lines. In section 1 it states that ‘individual parking spaces may be marked on arterial or other roads within shopping centres where parking restrictions apply.’

7.8       Clifton Terrace is classified as a Local Road and is therefore outside the Council’s jurisdiction of this policy.

7.9       However, section 2 of the policy states that ‘The Community Boards be given the delegated authority to approve exemptions….where the proposed installation falls outside the Council policy.’ Consequently the selection of this option would be subject to a decision by this Community Board.

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – $100 to install road markings.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.12    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

7.13    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.

7.14    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. 

7.15    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    

7.16    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies – Linwood-Central-Heathcote approval.

7.18    Implementation timeframe – approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option One Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·    This option would improve the efficiency of the positioning of parked vehicles to maximise the use of the overall space.

·    This would retain the flexibility of allowing all users to parking the site, including temporary use by tradesman’s vehicles

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not provide dedicated space for residents

8.   Option 2 -  Install Residents Parking Restrictions

Option Description

8.1       Install Resident Permit Holder only parking restrictions on the south side of Clifton Terrace in accordance with Attachment C.

8.2       These restrictions would be in effect during all times and based on one vehicle per property whom are eligible for the scheme.

8.3       As with option 1 the parking area would be marked as four individual parking spaces, each equivalent to one standard vehicle length.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.5       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

8.6       Council officers issued letters and plans of consultation to all residents of Clifton Terrace and The Spur. At least 10 of these are red zoned. In summary 5 residents at 5 separate properties responded in support and 5 residents located at 3 properties responded in opposition.

8.7       A summary of the consultation responses received is shown in Appendix D and in particular a comprehensive letter of support by Michael Vance of No.3 The Spur is in Appendix E.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation - $300 for signs and road markings.

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

8.11    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

8.12    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board approval.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – approximately four weeks one the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides dedicated use for residents eligible for the permit

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Is inefficient – because spaces are allocated, empty spaces are not able to be used by others even though there are high demands

·   The parking area would be unavailable for construction vehicles working on red zone properties who may not have access to off-street parking

·   The restriction would force non-permit holders to search for parking spaces elsewhere and lead to increased parking pressure at the next Clifton Terrace hill parking location, potentially generating new parking problems.

·   Some of the demand for parking is this area is from residents that are not eligible because of off-street parking.  This option prevents these residents and their visitors from using this on-street parking

9.   Option 3 -  Do nothing

Option Description

9.1       This would retain the existing unmarked parking bay

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       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

9.4       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.5       Not applicable.

Financial Implications

·   Cost of Implementation - $0

·   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0.

·   Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.6       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.7       Not applicable.

Implementation

9.8       Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

9.9       Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.10    The advantages of this option include:

·    This would retain the flexibility of allowing all users to parking the site, including temporary use by tradesman’s vehicles

9.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not provide dedicated space for local residents

·   Is inefficient use of the space, since it relies on vehicle positioning without marking guidance

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Clifton Terrace new parking ticks

37

b

Clifton Terrace Location Plan

38

c

Clifton Terrace Residents Parking consultation plan

39

 

 

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

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

10.    Ruru Road Bromley - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/522465

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 no stopping restrictions along parts of both sides side of Ruru Road between Maces Road and Dyers Road in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from Transpower who own a major substation located on the south side of Ruru Road approximately 150m east of Maces Road.

1.4       These measures have been requested to maintain safe two way operation for commercial vehicles accessing the Transpower site and the Orion site opposite.

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.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 91m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 28 metres.

2.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 204m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 8 metres.

3.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 210m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 8 metres.

4.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the south side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 85m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 11 metres.

5.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the south side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 110m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 81 metres.

6.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the south side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 196m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 18 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

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 – 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:

·     Provides a clear route for commercial vehicles to access Transpower and Orion substations

·     Ensures that appropriate road width for two way traffic is maintained

·     Ensures that good sight lines are maintained for vehicles turning our of the substation accesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Transpower Ltd have raised concern that access by their commercial vehicles to their substation on the south side of Ruru Road is proving difficult due to the number of parked vehicles on this road, which are due to staff based at nearby premises. This is problem is also experienced by similar large vehicles accessing the Orion substation immediately opposite, on the north side of Ruru Road.

5.2       Due to the random nature of maintenance and emergency response, access is required along this route throughout the day. Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to deter the obstruction of large vehicles passing in either direction.

5.3       Upon investigation, council staff observed that parking takes place on Ruru Road for most of the day including early morning and evening, which results in unreasonable constraints to the movement of commercial vehicles, as well as affecting sight lines for vehicles leaving the substations.

5.4       Staff consider that there are other parking opportunities, a short distance further east on Ruru Road that require a slightly longer walk to the main employers in the area.

5.5       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will ensure that Ruru Road will remain clear in the vicinity of the two substations, to ensure that emergency access by larger vehicles is safeguarded


 

6.   Option 1 – Install No Stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install no stopping restrictions on both sides of part of Ruru Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 225 -230 Maces Road and 77-100 Ruru Road.

6.5       Three responses of objection were received from nearby properties, including GoBus Ltd and the owners of their property who referred to staff needs for using the section for parking.

6.6       Transpower subsequently held a meeting with GoBus to understand their concerns. Consequently, the proposal was modified to reduce the restrictions slightly by removing a section of restriction at the western end of Ruru Road.

6.7       A modified proposal showed that a section of restriction could be removed and would alleviate the concerns of the local employers, without compromising commercial vehicle access. Two of affected parties have confirmed that they are satisfied that the modified proposal would be acceptable.

6.8       The modified scheme as proposed is considered appropriate to the local transport demands and that the displaced parking would be accommodated at other locations on Ruru Road and elsewhere with only minor additional walking time.

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 - $300 to install road markings.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.12    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.13    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.

6.14    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.

6.15    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Not applicable

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a clear route for commercial vehicles to access Transpower and Orion substations

·   Ensures that an appropriate road width for two way traffic is maintained

·   Ensures that good sight lines are maintained for vehicles turning out of the substation accesses

6.20    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 request for No Stopping Restrictions to support the safe movement of commercial vehicles accessing substations on both sides.

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 transport demands of the utility operator.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

80 Ruru Rd site plan

46

b

80 Ruru Rd Location Plan

47

 

 

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

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

11.    Roxburgh Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/591405

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.co.nz

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 'No Stopping' restrictions on Roxburgh Street in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated in response to concerns raised by 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.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of
Roxburgh Street commencing at a point 64 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for 12 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 chance of cars parking illegally and obstructing driveway access/egress.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Not known

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A member of the public raised a concern regarding vehicles parking between number 9 and 7 Roxburgh Street. The available kerb space for parking is approximately 4.5m and can’t accommodate the majority of light vehicles without illegally encroaching into the adjacent driveways.

5.2       This problem is common where a section of kerb between driveways is less than a typical car length. Vehicles often misjudge the available length when parking, creating a problem for residential driveway access.

5.3       No stopping restrictions as shown on Attachment A, provide further reinforcement that it is illegal to park in this spot.

 

 


 

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 and is 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 (property 7A and 9) have both verbally supported the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – No more than $50 to install road markings.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.9       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.

6.10    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.

6.11    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

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the chance of cars parking illegally and obstructing driveway access/egress.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not Known

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Install no road marking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

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:

·   Not known

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the driveway accessibility issue.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

54

b

Location Plan

55

 

 

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

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

12.    433 St Asaph Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction

Reference:

17/587502

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 north side of St Asaph Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Phillips Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated at 433 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.

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.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes between Monday and Friday on the north side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 138 metres east of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for 11 metres. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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 – Option 1 – Install P30 parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to 433 St Asaph Street and nearby businesses.

·     Provides improved access for deliveries and couriers servicing nearby businesses.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       An organisation has expressed concern about parked vehicles occupying the unrestricted on-street space outside his business at 433 St Asaph Street in Phillipstown. These vehicles have been observed to be parked for the whole working day and are considered likely to be staff who work at local businesses or the Christchurch CBD.

5.2       The organisation explained that they can have approximately 100-300 visitors a day who sometimes may travel by bus or cycle, though the majority travel by car and visit to for an interview discussion or to complete or submit forms. Clients have frequent difficulty locating an appropriate space near the business location.

5.3       Immediately west of the site there is an off-street car park, which includes three reserved spaces for the organisation. However these are for company vehicles that are for business use to collect clients who lack transport or are disadvantaged in a manner that warrants dedicated transport arrangements. Consequently, the organisation has no dedicated parking spaces for commuting staff or for their clients and visitors.

5.4       St Asaph Street between Fitzgerald Street and Phillips Street, on the south side does have some P5 parking restrictions, though this period would be too short for the required activity and in practice, is used for loading and deliveries.

5.5       Upon investigation, council staff concur that the unrestricted parking spaces on St Asaph Street are consistently occupied throughout the working week and agree with the difficulties described by staff of the organisation.

5.6       The installation of the P30 restrictions will increase parking turnover to assist customer access and to a lesser extent, loading activity at 433 St Asaph Street as well as any other businesses nearby that attract visitors, customers or deliveries.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

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

6.2       These restrictions would be in effect between Monday and Friday, 8am to 6pm which corresponds with the business hours of the organisation that requested the parking restrictions.

6.3       This option provides approximately two car lengths of P30 parking space on the street and would be a short walking distance to other nearby businesses on St Asaph Street.

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       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to property owners and tenants at 386-437 St Asaph Street. One objection was received from a neighbouring business.

6.7       This business owner objected to the restriction and did not indicate a specific amendment, apart from a general suggestion to mark unrestricted spaces independently, which is currently not council policy.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.9       Of particular relevance is the City Council Parking Strategy (2003) and the parking requirements for business areas that are set out in section 6 of this document.  Policy 6G refers to on-street parking and provides details of kerbside parking priority, expressed in a Parking Priority table; this is reproduced as follows:

Ranking

Commercial/retail areas

 

1

Bus stops

 

2

Taxi, Limousine and Shuttle services

 

3

Loading zones

 

4

Parking for people with disabilities

 

5

Short stay private parking for business and retail needs

 

6

Residents parking

 

7

Commuter parking

 

 

6.10    As the table confirms, the proposed use of on-street parking for short stay is considered a preferred use of on-street space in a business area, in contrast to commuter parking.

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $200 to install signs and road markings.

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.13    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.15    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.

6.16    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    Not applicable

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.19    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve client access to the business at 433 St Asaph Street as well as customers who visit other nearby businesses.

6.21    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 local 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 adjacent business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

433 St Asaph St location plan

62

b

433 St Asaph St site plan

63

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

13.    Property Review Process

Reference:

17/386141

Contact:

Angus Smith

Angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

9418502

 

 

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 formally receive the list of properties in their area that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased.

1.2       To initiate the process to review those properties for the purpose of making future use decisions.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated to follow up on a Council resolution of 12 May 2016 Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00242 and related workshops held with Community Boards.

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 utilising the significance and engagement assessment worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Commence the Board’s review process to identify if the properties in Attachments B, C and D should be retained for alternative public uses, retained for strategic purposes/future decisions or considered for disposal.

3.         Being of the view that the sites listed below are unlikely to have alternative public uses or strategic purposes, and that the Board has sufficient information to form this preliminary view, recommends that Council directs officers to commence investigation processes regarding the potential to dispose of the sites:

a.         ______________

4.         To allow for the inclusion of advice in a report to Council, conclude this review and provide comment to staff, within six months of resolving to commence the process.

5.         Note that the final report containing the outcome of the process will come back to the Board for recommendation to Council.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has adopted a process for determining the future use of properties that are no longer being utilised for a public work i.e. delivering a service or activity.

4.2       That process has been socialised with Community Boards on a couple of occasions and this report serves to formally commence that process.

4.3       A list of the properties in the Community Board’s area is attached.

4.4       The next steps following this report are for the Community Board to either make some early decisions in respect of the specific properties, or develop and work through a process to develop alternative public uses to inform an options report in six months’ time.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council purchases properties for the delivery of a service / activity / public work. They are held and funded by the business unit (titular asset owner) delivering that service / activity or project.

5.2       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally purchased it is incumbent on the Council to make a decision to determine the future use of that property.

5.3       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

5.4       In general terms the Council should only hold land that is:

5.4.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.4.2   Held for strategic purposes; and

5.4.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.5       Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk. It also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets / money.

Process

5.6       A flow chart of the process is attached, but in summary is as follows:

5.6.1   When a property ceases to be held for the purpose of delivering the activity or service for which it was originally purchased then it is circularised around business units, Community Boards and possible stakeholders to assess and identify community needs and develop options to for alternative public uses.

5.6.2   This is done on a portfolio basis annually or as required.

5.6.3   A period of six months is provided to establish the alternative public uses and options.

5.6.4   The results are collated into an options report which would usually incorporate as one of the options sale.

5.6.5   The Council then resolve future use based on staff and Community Board recommendations.

5.7       Retaining the property for an alternative public use needs:

5.7.1   To be rationalised,

5.7.2   A clearly identified need,

5.7.3   To be supported by a sound and robust business case,

5.7.4   Supporting Council strategies,

5.7.5   Established funding in the Councils annual and long term plans

5.7.6   To have an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor and budget provision within the LTP

Process initiation

5.8       Attached are the following:

5.8.1   A list of properties in the ward that is no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased.

5.8.2   A plan of the ward showing the property locations.

5.8.3   A brief status report, street view and aerial photo of each property.

5.8.4   A list of all the properties across the city grouped in terms of Board/Ward areas.

5.9       Next step is for the Board to consider how it approaches the process of considering alternative future public uses. This may involve:

5.9.1   Whether the properties can/should be prioritised.

5.9.2   Whether early decisions can be made e.g. retention for a particular use or purpose or to declare some surplus for disposal because it is obvious there are no practical alternative options

5.9.3   Develop a programme and process with the Community Governance Team to canvass the community’s needs and develop options over the next six months.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Process flow chart

69

b

Property List Central

70

c

Property list Heathcote

79

d

Property List linwood

96

e

City List

101

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

14.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/570162

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 3941 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.         Decide on implementing a public forum as pursuant to Standing Orders and the frequency of the forum.

3.         Appoint a Community Board representative for the Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party.

 

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Community Board Plan

3.1.1   The Board has been working on development of its Community Board Plan and it is anticipated that the Plan for the next two years will come into effect from mid July 2017.  

3.1.2   The Community Board Plan sets the framework that will guide the Boards decision making and actions for the next two years.  It informs the Board’s decisions on local activities and enables the Board to make decisions on funding and Long Term Plan priorities. 

3.1.3   Workshops and surveys have been used to collect data and a workshop will be held with the Board in July 2017.

3.2       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.2.1   Linfield Park Parking and Speed Issues – at the Board’s 19 April 2017 meeting the Board asked staff to look into the parking on berms and the speed of cars on the bend of Kearneys Road and Rudds Road. 

·   Staff have advised that they have met with a resident and the Club Manager of Linfield Sports Club to discuss the issues of parking on berms and speed of traffic.  Staff have asked the Board to consider:

·   Providing more temporary off-street parking on a regular basis.

·   Deterring grass berm parking by providing obstructions/landscaping subject to agreement with Council Parks Unit.

·   Improving markings and signs at the bend location.

·   Regular weekend parking enforcement.

3.2.2   Curries Road Reserve – Parks Unit staff are working with Woolston Development Project youth who will be planting the garden in Curries Road Reserve in the near future.

3.2.3   Petition – Worcester Street/Fitzgerald Avenue – the petition that was presented to the Board’s 29 May 2017 meeting by Mr and Mrs Britnell was presented to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee’s 7 June 2017 meeting.  The Committee received the petition and request further information from staff.  The staff information is planned to be presented to the Committee’s 29 June 2017 meeting.

3.2.4   Board Comments on Major Cycleways Route – Heathcote Expressway (Ferry Road) – the Board met on 23 June 2017 and formulate the Board’s comment on the Heathcote Expressway Ferry Road option.  A copy of the memo is attached.

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

3.2.6   Taylors Mistake Baches Working Party – at the Council’s 22 June 2017 meeting the Council resolved:

That the Council:

1.         Resolve to establish a working party:

a.         To recommend to the Council, as land owner, whether to authorise, or on what terms to authorise, baches to continue to occupy Council land at Taylors Mistake, Boulders Bay and Maori Garden; and

b.         Comprising Councillor Templeton as Chairperson, Deputy Mayor Turner, Councillor East and Councillor Johanson and a representative each from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Banks Peninsula Community Board; and

c.         Direct the working party to meet and undertake the investigations necessary in order for the working party to report back to the Council by 30 September 2017.

3.3       The provision of strategic, technical and procedural advice to the Community Board

3.3.1   The Board adopted new Standing Orders and Code of Conduct at its 19 May 2017 Board meeting.  There are now some changes that will impact on the Board.  One being:

·   Public Forums (Clause 11) – Public forums are a defined period of time, usually at the start of a meeting, which, at the discretion of the meeting, is put aside for the purpose of public input.  Public Forums are designed to enable members of the public to bring matters to the attention of the local authority.

·   Deputations (Clause 12) – the purpose of a deputation is to enable a person, group or organisation to make a presentation to a meeting on a matter or matters covered by a report on the agenda and within that meeting’s terms of reference.  Deputations are approved by the Chairperson.

A decision is sought from the Board on how the Board may or may not have public forums and if agreed when forums are to be held.

3.4       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.4.1   2017/18 Council Annual Plan – The Council confirmed the 2017/18 Annual Plan at its meeting on 20 June 2017.  Below are the Council’s decisions in relation to matters that the Board raised in its submission:

·   Linwood/Woolston Pool - That the funding for the Linwood/Woolston Pool and South West Leisure Centre is deferred for one year to the 2018/19 financial year, and the viability, size and scale of these two aquatics facilities is considered through the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process following the review of an updated City Wide Aquatics Facilities Plan.

·   School Speed Zones - Add $123,000 in capital expenditure in the 2017/18 Annual Plan for the accelerated implementation of at least six school speed zones in the 2017/18 year and requests staff consider additional options, such as permanent speed zone changes, to access greater cost efficiencies in implementing school speed zones.

·   Suburban Masterplans - Notes staff are working with the relevant community boards to recalibrate the existing suburban master plans to ensure that they are fit-for-purpose.  Noting that the Community Board can recommend the bringing forward of relevant budgets, request that staff report to the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board, as soon as possible, to implement the next consultation phase of the Ferry Road Masterplan Project (WL1), including the integration of other projects along the corridor (including School Zones)Noting that Linwood Village has a current Masterplan which is not delivering the regeneration opportunities identified by the local communities, request staff to consult with Regenerate Christchurch and provide advice to the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board on the best approach of using the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.  Request staff provide advice to community boards as to whether existing regeneration tools may assist in the process.  Notes that any proposed changes to the suburban master plans, resulting from Community Board engagement, will be incorporated into the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

·   Christchurch Yacht Club - Bring forward the Moncks Bay section of the Coastal Pathway works, alongside the proposed Boat Shed, to be delivered within the existing capital budget, from the 2018/19 year to the 2017/18 year to ensure the project is aligned with the redevelopment of the Christchurch Yacht Club’s base.  Request staff report to the Council by the end of August 2017 on options to assist the Christchurch Yacht Club in completing construction of its replacement base, in recognition of the public amenity and use offered by the development which is adjacent to the Coastal Pathway, noting a provisional allocation has been included in the Annual Plan 2017/18 but this cannot be accessed until the Council has received and made a decision on the options report.

·   Community-led Revitalisation Plan for the Inner City East and Linwood Village - Noting that Linwood Village has a current Masterplan which is not delivering the regeneration opportunities identified by the local communities, request staff to consult with Regenerate Christchurch and provide advice to the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board on the best approach of using the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.  Request staff provide advice to community boards as to whether existing regeneration tools may assist in the process. 

·   Inner City East Drop-In Centre - Requests early advice from staff about existing options and tools the Council has to address the issue of people sleeping rough in the City.  Requests staff to continue working with other agencies to identify the key issues contributing to homelessness and potential solutions for consideration as part of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.  Note that Council does have the capacity to make changes to its budget, should the need arise, in the period before the Long Term Plan.

·   Swimming Pool Charges - Add up to $80,000 to the 2017/18 Annual Plan for pre-schoolers and holders of green prescription visiting any swimming pool open between 9am and 3pm on school days to have free entry from September 2017 to April 2018 (one adult accompanying a pre-schooler currently has free entry) to be carried out on a trial basis over the 2017/18 Financial Year.  Noting that the Council are scheduled to receive a report on its Aquatic Facilities Strategy in 2017, and that this report will consider barriers to participation at Council pools and options to address or mitigate these as part of process for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

·   Park and Playground Equipment - Note that the Woolston Park Playground is proceeding and is funded through the existing Delivery Package for Play and Recreation Facilities in 2017/18. 

·   Significance and Engagement Policy - Resolves to amend its Significance and Engagement Policy to reinstate City Care Ltd shares as a strategic asset. 

·   Scarborough Park Playground Renewal - Bring forward the Scarborough Playground Renewal Programme to the 2017/18 Financial Year, with a capital expenditure of $450,000, on the condition that the proposed private donation of $100,000 for the Playground Renewal is received in the first quarter of 2017/18.

·   Level of Service – Maintenance of Parks and Streets - Add $230,000 in operational expenditure in the 2017/18 Annual Plan to fund an additional three Urban Park Rangers to enable a more proactive approach for parks maintenance.  Notes the provision of additional Urban Park Rangers is an initial response. In-depth service reviews will occur as part of the development of the Long Term Plan 2018-2028.  Increase its Parks and Playground Reactive Maintenance Budget by doubling the amount for the 2017/18 financial year (an additional $180,000).

·   Items within the Board’s submission that did not progress or listed for action - Major Cycleway Routes (funding of footbridge in Heathcote), Linwood Nursery Site (clearance and land reinstatement), Moa Bone footpath (reinstatement of footpath in front of Moa Bone Cave), Latimer Community Housing Trust (shortfall funding), Ely Street Parking, Bays Area Skatepark, Community Resilience Partnership Fund, Hagley Oval Extension, Sumner Changing Sheds, Councils Parking Facilities as a Strategic Asset. 

3.5       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

3.5.1   Bays Area Community Preparedness work is ongoing with two community meetings having been held in Sumner and Redcliffs during the month of June to establish community response teams. The Board funded Community Preparedness Facilitator is working with staff to develop a framework and provide leadership for the Bays Area as each community begins developing their plans.

3.6       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.6.1   Staff are requesting the Board to indicate if there are issues they would like considered for NewsLine.

3.7       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.7.1   Board members are requested to highlight significant matters from the meeting to be raised by the Chair at the next Council Meeting (Community Board reports) in August 2017.

4.   Significant Community Issues

4.1       Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan

4.1.1   At the Board seminar held on 12 June 2017 the Board discussed the possible involvement of Regenerate Christchurch with the community and the Board to rejuvenate the Inner City East and Linwood Village.  The discussion focussed on the need for the process to be community-led and for the Board and Regenerate Christchurch to support what the community would like to see happen in the Inner City East and Linwood Village area.  Deliberations considered an approach that allows for the process to be community-led with Regenerate supporting the process in a non-statutory framework.

4.1.2   The Council, at its 22 June meeting, when deliberating on a Community-led Revitalisation Plan for the Inner City East and Linwood Village, noting that Linwood Village has a current Masterplan which is not delivering the regeneration opportunities identified by the local communities, requested staff to consult with Regenerate Christchurch and provide advice to the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board on the best approach of using the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.  Council also requested staff to provide advice to community boards as to whether existing regeneration tools may assist in the process. 

5.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

5.1       Community Facilities

5.1.1   Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre- Registrations of Interest for bookings in the new facility closed on Friday 26 June. Staff are beginning initial work on scheduling ahead of the opening in August.

5.1.2   Heathcote Valley Community Centre-The Heathcote Valley Community Association applied to the Board for funding to pay for set up costs including basic kitchen, cleaning and information costs.  The amount requested was $5,821.  The Board resolved that the application would lay on the table in order for staff to investigate whether the funding could be provided from the Facilities Rebuild Fund. 

The Facilities Rebuild Fund code for Heathcote Valley Community Centre was closed soon after the centre was completed so no funding was available from this source.  The set up costs will now to paid from internal funding sources. Staff will are working to ensure that in future funding for set up costs of this nature are included in the budget.

5.2       Events Report Back

5.2.1   Community Service Awards – The Community Service Awards were successfully held on the 15 June 2017 at Opawa Baptist Church.

5.2.2   What’s on Woolston was held on the 20 June 2017 at St Johns Church Woolston.

6.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

6.1       The Board has $37,455 as carry over from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund.  Information on additional Discretionary and Strengthening Communities Funding will be provided once staff have received this.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report

111

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Funding 2016/17

112

c

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board- Memo to Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee relating to MCR Heathcote Expressway 2017-06-29

113

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Louise McLean - Governance Support Officer

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

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

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 July 2017

 

 

15.  Elected Members’ 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.