Social and Community Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social and Community Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 5 July 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

30 June 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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/

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

Social and Community Development Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social and Community Development Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social and Community Development Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Community housing, including- social housing, affordable housing (including rental), housing policy, tenancy service, homelessness and unresolved earthquake housing matters

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees/taskforce the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Community Housing to the Housing Taskforce for matters relating to Community housing, including- social housing, affordable housing (including rental), housing policy, tenancy service, homelessness and unresolved earthquake housing matters

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the multicultural strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

STAFF REPORTS

C       6.       Briefing - Michael Campbell

Sister cities opportunities and climate change scientists relocating to Christchurch

C       7.       Briefing - Social Equity Wellbeing Network

Sharon Torstonson will provide a general overview of the health and wellbeing of the non-profit sector and current issues

C       8.       Briefing - Homelessness

A verbal update on homelessness related issues, and a discussion about the adoption of a “Housing First” approach.

A       9.       Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for the Former St Luke's Vicarage, 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch...................................................................................................... 11

C       10.     Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for Shands Emporium, 211 Manchester Street.................................................................................................. 23

C       11.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 129 Cambridge Terrace ............................... 27

C       12.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton......................... 39

C       13.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton.......................... 51

C       14.     Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 26 May 2017................................................ 61

C       15.     Bishopdale Library and Community Centre Update

Verbal update by Matt Cummins on the Bishopdale Library and Community Centre

C       16.     Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update June 2017........................................ 67

C       17.     Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Members Update..................................... 123   

 

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 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 be confirmed of the Social and Community Development Committee meetings held on the following dates:

·          Wednesday, 31 May 2017 (refer page 6)

·          Monday, 19 June 2017 (refer page 12).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Martin Witt and Amanda Dodd, Cancer Society, and Heather Kimber, Canterbury District Health Board, will provide the Committee with a full evaluation of Smokefree Canterbury’s Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

UNCONFIRMED

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social and Community Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 31 May 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett – departed at 4.00pm

 

 

31 May 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Lester Wolfreys

Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

  

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00011

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Social and Community Development Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 3 May 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

6.   Briefings to the Social and Community Development Committee

 

 

A briefing was given by Kaitlyn White, Youth Voice Canterbury and Kendra Burgess Naude, Co-Chair for the Christchurch Youth Council on the Christchurch Youth Action Plan.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00012

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the briefing on the Christchurch Youth Action Plan.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

7.   CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

 

Committee Comment

1.              Martin Witt, Cancer Society of New Zealand Canterbury-West Coast, attended the meeting alongside staff and provided some information about the smokefree outdoor dining trials being undertaken.

2.              The Committee commented on the possible need for receptacles for cigarette butts to be available outside bars, a campaign about picking up cigarette butts, and communications with multicultural  community groups.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Recommends that the Council:

a.         Supports the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025

b.         Agrees to the proposed Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan

2.         Notes that the Council will implement the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in partnership with Community and Public Health (Canterbury District Health Board) and the Cancer Society.

3.         Notes that staff will provide the Social and Community Development Committee with annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. 

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00013

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that the Council:

1.            Supports the national goal of a Smokefree New Zealand 2025.

2.         Agrees to the proposed Council Smokefree 2025 Action Plan.

3.         Notes that the Council will implement the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan in partnership with Community and Public Health (Canterbury District Health Board) and the Cancer Society.

4.         Notes that staff will provide the Social and Community Development Committee with annual progress reports on the implementation of the Smokefree 2025 Action Plan. 

5.         Requests staff to give consideration to a campaign to address the disposal of cigarette butts in public places, in support of environmental health, and to report back to the Social and Community Development Committee.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

8.   Draft Healthy Food Action Plan

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00014

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Adopt the Healthy Food Action Plan 2017.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                          Carried

 

9.   Approval for a Conservation Covenant Consent for 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00015

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve a Conservation Covenant Consent for the repair and upgrade works to 53 Gloucester Street, Christchurch and covered by RMA/2017/407, subject to the following condition:

a.      That a full photographic record be made of each of the fireplaces before deconstruction commences.  Photographs should be labelled with location, date and photographer’s name, and submitted with a plan showing photograph locations.  These should be submitted to the Christchurch City Council’s Heritage Team on a computer memory stick, or electronically by either email or via the website: https://wetransfer.com/ to heritage@ccc.govt.nz

Councillor Keown/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                             Carried

 

10. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for part of the Duncan's Building, 143-157 High Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00016

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend Council:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive grant of up to $362,675 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 143-157 High Street, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a full conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property titles.

Councillor Keown/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                      Carried

 

11. Naming Botanic Gardens Herbarium the Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium

 

Committee Comment

Committee discussion was held about inviting Mr Metcalf and his family to the Council meeting when this report was discussed, to celebrate the event.

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00017

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve that the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Herbarium be named “The Lawrie Metcalf Herbarium”.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.43pm and reconvened at 2.53pm.

12. Chairperson's Report of the International Relations Working Group

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00018

Part C

             That the Social and Community Development Committee approve:

1.         Updating the International Relations Working Group’s Terms of Reference membership to include “or representative” for each of the external organisations.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

13. Community Facilities Rebuild Quarterly Update May 2017

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00019

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report

2.       Asks staff to report on passive building design policies currently in use.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Keown                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

Councillor Scandrett departed at 4.00pm during Item 15.

15. Events Production Team Work Programme

 

The Committee requested that Commemorations be added to the information reported to it by the Events Production Team.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00020

Part B

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive information in relation to the calendar of events produced by the Council’s Events Production Team for the upcoming 2017-2018 season and the development of the Events Sustainability Framework.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

14. The Berlin Wall in Christchurch

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00021

Part B

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the report.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

16  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00022

Part C

That at 4.19pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 160 to 161 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                    Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.50pm.

 

    

Meeting concluded at 4.50pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social and Community Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 19 June 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

15 June 2017

 

 

 

Acting Principal Advisor

Andrew Rutledge

Head of Parks

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies for lateness from Councillor Johanson and for early departure from Councillor Scandrett were noted.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

             There are no minutes to confirm.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Garden Village Proposal - Brian Briggs and Ron Andrews

 

Brian Briggs and Ron Andrew, President of Christchurch Beautifying Association, briefed the Committee on their proposal of creating an “over 50’s Garden Village. 

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00023

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Request a staff report in relation to a Garden Village concept, including information on how to develop garden plans for the Council’s social housing complexes, and potential partners for future park developments becoming living villages.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

7.   185 Chairs - Peter Majendie

 

Peter Majendie briefed the Committee regarding “185 Chairs”, an art installation reflecting on the loss of lives, livelihood and living in Christchurch City following the earthquake of 22 February 2011.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00024

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Seeks further information, by way of a staff report, on the options of a location for the 185 Chairs art installation.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

8.   Joint Briefing by Christchurch City Council and Canterbury District Health Board staff - Health and Wellbeing Partnership

 

Council staff Helen Beaumont and Lester Wolfreys, and Community and Public Health, Canterbury District Health Board staff Evon Currie and Dr Anna Stevenson briefed the Committee about a Health and Wellbeing Partnership between the Christchurch City Council and Canterbury District Health Board.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00025

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Seeks further information on the future work plan via a joint Christchurch City Council and Canterbury District Health Board workshop including: health impact assessment and how it has contributed to the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy; and the opportunities to improve health and well-being through housing initiatives and the Housing Accord.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                      Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.43pm and resumed at 2.55pm.

Councillor Scandrett arrived at 3.15pm.

 

9.   Briefing - Christchurch City Council Learning Through Action - Peter Johnson

 

Peter Johnson and Celia Sheerin, Education Programme Team, briefed the Committee in relation to the Council’s Learning Through Action education programme for schools 2017.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00026

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Commend staff for work on environmental education.

 

2.         Seek a report on the opportunities to extend educational resources, including enhancing the Civic education component, involving Community Boards and information on other opportunities for adult education.

 

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

10. Briefing - Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan - Gail Payne and Ruth Littlewood

 

Ruth Littlewood, Senior Policy Analyst and Gail Payne, Community Development Advisor briefed the Committee on the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan (CAAP).  A memorandum had been distributed to the Committee members prior to the meeting providing background information on the CAAP. 

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00027

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Endorse and continue to support the work being carried out by staff on the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.47pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017.

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

   


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

9.        Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for the Former St Luke's Vicarage, 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/564615

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to recommend that Council approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for the former St Luke’s Vicarage at 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for a Heritage Incentive Grant from the building owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the dwelling and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $204,892 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 185 Kilmore Street.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a full conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·    Option 2 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the repair, re-use and future protection of this significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    It will help to repair and preserve a building rare in New Zealand for the length of time it retained its original purpose and use as a parish vicarage.

·    The building has recognised local and national architectural and social, historical and cultural significance.

·    The building will be repaired and retained as a domestic residence thus being used as it was originally intended.

·    With the completion of the works outlined, the former vicarage will be repaired and upgraded, and the owners are committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This is a large grant for a single building; however it is an investment in an important local landmark and nationally recognised heritage building that might otherwise have been lost.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The former St Luke’s Vicarage is scheduled as a Significant (Group 2) building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed Category I by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) List Number 3132. The site has Wāhi Tapu registration – number 7716 – with HNZPT, and as a Wāhi Tapu/Wāhi Taonga site in the Christchurch District Plan. The building has historical significance for its 126 year association with the vicars of St Luke’s Church, and high cultural significance as a place sacred to Māori as the burial site of renowned Ngāi Tahu chief Tautahi. The vicarage has architectural significance as one of Robert Speechly’s most highly regarded surviving domestic works. The former vicarage and its setting have contextual significance as a picturesque Mid-19th Century dwelling that stands as a reminder of the loss of St Luke’s Anglican Church after the 2011 Canterbury earthquake. The former vicarage and its setting has archaeological significance in view of it wāhi tapu status and early colonial development.

5.2       The former Vicarage was designed by Robert Speechly, an architect who came to Christchurch, with his pupil William Crisp, to oversee the construction of the Anglican Cathedral. It was built in 1867-68, with the hood over the study window installed two years later in 1870. The building was extended in 1879, to complete the structure as a grand house which included servant’s quarters with bell pulls (some of which still remain in place), a central entrance hall with timber panelling and a grand timber staircase. The buildings was used as a vicarage until 1994, at which time it became the administration centre for the Inter-Church Trade and Industry Mission. The book shop Ecclesia Books also used the premises, and it retained some Parish use as well. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.   

5.3       The current owners of the building purchased it from the Anglican Church Property Trustees in 2016, in order to restore its domestic use as their family home. The building suffered significant damage in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, resulting in it being unsafe to occupy. It has been vacant since this time. The chimneys were removed and the building braced and boarded up, but it has suffered a degree of vandalism since, including some fire damage. The damage to the foundations and structure of the building mean that it is now a very low percentage of new building standard and requires repair and strengthening to make it habitable again.

5.4       The total cost for the proposed repair and upgrade of the building (including heritage and non-heritage related costs) is estimated at $1,102,395.90, excluding GST. There is no insurance payment associated with these works; however once completed the owners will be able to obtain ongoing building insurance. No other grants have been secured to assist with these works.

5.5       The proposed works are being overseen by heritage professional Jenny May, and heritage engineer, Andrew Marriott. They comprise structural upgrades, repairs, and reinstatement of heritage features, to the former vicarage. The works include temporarily moving the building off its foundations, to create new foundations, bracing and structurally upgrading the building internally, repairing and reinstating internal joinery, reinstating some former fireplaces, and carrying out maintenance and repair on the windows, weatherboards, doors, roof, and decking. An early water tank will be removed from the roof space to prevent the possibility of further damage. The owners intend to retain this heritage element and re-use it on site in some way. The proposed works will ensure the ongoing retention and increased resilience of this significant heritage building, and enable it to have a sustainable use as a dwelling once again.

 

 

  Photograph: Former St Luke’s Vicarage, 185 Kilmore Street, December 2014, M Vairpiova

6.   Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works are to structurally upgrade and repair the building. They involve temporarily moving the building and creating new foundations, structurally upgrading the interior and carrying out repairs and reinstatement works to the interior and exterior fabric. The existing timber windows and doors will be repaired as necessary and decayed timber weatherboards will be repaired or replaced. The roof will be replaced, like for like and repainting is also required. A sprinkler system is proposed to help protect the building against fire.

6.2       Overall the total heritage and non-heritage works being proposed are priced at $1,102,395.90 excluding GST. All relevant costs of the heritage related works ($682,973) are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Preliminary & General

$51,206

Scaffolding

$39,325

Prepared building for relocation

$14,451

Relocation of building

$59,687

Strengthening works

$47,478

Roofing and rainwater goods

$4,000

Conservation & repair of external joinery and weatherboards

$49,925

Interior wall lining

$51,365

Skirting boards and architraves

$10,136

Removal of water tank

$5,776

Remove asbestos

$22,579

Exterior and interior wall repair & conservation

$150,468

Exterior verandahs

$11,950

Reinstate fireplaces

$2,352

Staircase and timber panelling - shellac

$11,000

Flooring

$11,783

Services

$14,530

Sprinkler system

$74,912

Professional fees/consents

$50,050

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$682,973

 

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has historical, and social significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological significance. The site also has high cultural significance. Its ongoing repair, retention and upgrade to enable it to once again be used as a dwelling is worthy of support. Given the high cost of the works, and the current limitations of this grant fund, a grant of thirty percent is suggested as being appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (thirty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

$204,892

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       The building is on a site of significance to Ngāi Tahu. They have been comprehensively consulted as part of the resource consent application that has been undertaken for the dwelling, and have agreed to the proposal with some conditions, which the owners have agreed to. This being the case the proposed works are not considered to have an adverse impact on Mana Whenua.

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch – Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha

·           The Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$351,554

 

6.8       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.9       Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.10    The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.12    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A full conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.14    The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent and building consent will be required for these works.

6.15    The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will help to ensure the repair, re-use and future protection of this significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   It will help to repair and preserve a building rare in New Zealand for the length of time it retained its original purpose and use as a parish vicarage.

·   It is intended that the building will be brought back into use as a dwelling, its original use, and its ongoing use for most of its existence.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and upgraded, and the owners are committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a large grant for a single building; however it is an investment in an important heritage building that might otherwise have been lost.

7.   Option 2 – A higher level of funding

Option Description

7.1       As for Option 1 but with a higher level of financial support to the project. Previous HIG Grant support to other projects in the city has varied but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A higher grant of fifty percent ($341,487) is shown in the table below.  A higher grant has been considered as a second option, and not the preferred option, due to the limited available funds remaining for 2017/2018 and the knowledge of other grant applications which have been received by Council staff.

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$341,487

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$214,959

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   It would provide a higher level of support from Council for this important heritage building repair project, at a time of significance loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be severely limited funds remaining for the rest of the year 2017/2018 to assist with other worthy heritage projects.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - Former St Luke's Vicarage, 185 Kilmore Street

18

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

10     Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for Shands Emporium, 211 Manchester Street

Reference:

17/620272

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.Smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to grant approval for an extension of time of one year for a previously approved Heritage Incentive Grant for the heritage building now located at 211 Manchester Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines and Policy of the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme. This requires approval for extensions of time in the uptake of approved Heritage Incentive Grants.

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the previous Council approval for the grant and the level of funding involved in the project being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Approve an extension of time of one year for the uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for the Shands Emporium building, 211 Manchester Street. The new completion date for the project would be 5 July 2018.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A heritage incentive grant of $172,219 was approved by the Community Housing and Economic Development Committee on 8 October 2015 and by Council on 29 October 2015 to assist with conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building known as Shands Emporium at 211 Manchester Street. Written notice of the grant approval was sent to the applicants and owners of the property on 11 November 2015.

4.2       The Operational Guidelines state that "Grant money is available for a period of 18 months from the date of written approval of the grant. This period will only be extended with the written consent of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee."

4.3       This complex project involved the relocation of the earthquake damaged building from its original site in Hereford Street and its placement on the current site adjacent to the former Trinity Church. The repair and rebuild works covered by the grant have been underway for most of the past couple of years but have taken longer than anticipated to complete. This has been due largely to the complex requirements of linking the building to the back of the Trinity Church. Trinity Church itself has been under extensive repairs and seismic upgrades following earthquake damage and is supported by a separate Council Central City Landmark Heritage Grant. Consequently the applicants are seeking an extension of time to enable them to continue with the completion of the works to this very important heritage building.  Council continues to offer support to the building owner to unlock restoration challenges, particularly regulatory challenges.

 

5.   Context/Background

Photograph of Shands Emporium, June 2017.

Brief History of the building and renovation project

5.1       The small commercial building now located at 211 Manchester Street is the building known as Shands Emporium that was previously located at 88 Hereford Street close to the junction with Oxford Terrace. The building has been relocated following the 2010/2011 earthquakes and the demolition of most of the surrounding buildings in this area. The original building dates back to 1860 when it was constructed as a solicitor's office for Harry Bell Johnson, a lessee of the land owner John Shand.

5.2       The two storey Victorian Colonial style building has a simple overall form with a single ridge pitched roof with gables either end. The building was timber framed with weatherboard cladding and the roof was originally shingle but is now corrugated iron. A lean-to extension was added at the back of the building but this has now been removed following damage in the earthquakes. This rear section included a commercial safe constructed in brick with a cast iron door.  The function of the building changed little over time, operating as commercial offices until the 1970's when it changed to being used as a small retail outlet for antiques and second hand clothes.

5.3       The building sustained damage in the recent earthquakes with the brick portions and the masonry chimneys being damaged and consequently removed. The building has also suffered some racking in the timber frame and the windows and doors. However, the building remained largely intact and still includes the original staircase as well as a number of other original features. The building was raised off the ground and moved to a temporary site at 95 Cashel Street before a move to the current address on Manchester Street which involved lifting the building over the tram wires. Both moves were approved by Council, the latter under RMA92029919.

5.4       As noted above, the works have taken longer than anticipated by the contractor and building owner due to the need to design a suitable link to the back of the former Trinity Church. The link is a complex contemporary two storey concrete and glass structure. This new structure will allow the Shands Emporium building to function as an entry into the refurbished Trinity Church building.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

11.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 129 Cambridge Terrace

Reference:

17/500443

Contact:

Amanda Ohs

Amanda.ohs@ccc.govt.nz

9418292

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work at the Canterbury Club at 129 Cambridge Terrace.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant Funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $40,920 for maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 129 Cambridge Terrace. 

2.         Note that as a full conservation covenant is already registered against the property title, the payment of this grant is not subject to the applicant entering into a limited conservation covenant.  

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty percent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 –Thirty percent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and maintenance of this highly significant building.  This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The Canterbury Club will continue to be a landmark feature in the central city.

·     The works are exterior, therefore the benefits to the community will be highly visible.

·     With the completion of the repainting, the building will be maintained and protected, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building. 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to repaint a single commercial building. However the costs reflect the size and scale of the timber building. 

 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The Canterbury Club at 129 Cambridge Terrace is scheduled as a ‘Highly Significant’ Group 1 building in the Christchurch District Plan.  The building is listed by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga as a Category 2 Historic Place. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information. 

5.2       The current owners of the building and the applicant for the grant is the Canterbury Club Incorporated.  The building was last repainted in c2007.  The owners last received a grant for $217,350.00 in 2009. The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants allow for multiple grants for properties, generally with a minimum of five cumulative years between applications. 

Cambridge 129 (Canterbury Club) 8-12-2014 M

Photograph: M Vairpiova, December 2014

 

 

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Canterbury Club is of high historical and social significance as it was established in 1872 as a club for gentlemen of a mercantile character, including lawyers, bankers, importers and accountants, from both the city and the broader Canterbury region and it is still in use for the purpose for which it was built. With an original membership of 151 men, the Canterbury Club was an alternative to the Christchurch Club which had been established in 1856 for Canterbury landholders.  Women were initially not allowed entry to the club but in 1894 members were allowed to invite women as guests to the dining room for afternoon tea on the first Tuesday of every month.  Women did not gain the right to be full members until 2002.  The original building was built in 1873-74 to a design by Frederick Strouts.  A prolific architect, Strouts’ extant buildings include Ivey Hall, Lincoln, and Otahuna, Tai Tapu. He also helped establish the Canterbury Association of Architects. Some additions were made to the service areas of the club buildings around the turn of the century, with Collins and Harman designing substantial additions for the building in 1907. The complex has high cultural significance for the continuation of its purpose built use for almost 140 years. 

6.2       Internal alterations have been made over the last 40 years to adapt the building for continued use into the 21st century. In 2005 the Club subdivided and sold a 1398sq metre section which contained the Squash Courts on its western boundary, using the proceeds of the sale to restore the listed Club buildings. In 2006 significant alterations were made to the club buildings by Wilkie and Bruce Architects. The service buildings at the rear of the building were demolished except for the caretakers flat, which was moved 2.5 metres to the west and reduced to its original simple box form. The caretaker’s flat has been restored and is now linked to the main building through the Wilkie and Bruce additions.

6.3       Following damage in the Canterbury earthquakes the brick chimneys were replaced above roof height with lightweight replicas and repairs were undertaken to the parapet, while internally re-levelling of the floors, re-lining the walls and the installation of gas fires was undertaken. Despite the series of alterations the building retains a high degree of its architectural and aesthetic significance.  No Council grant funding was provided for these repairs.

6.4       The building was last repainted around 10 years ago.  Repainting is needed as the current paint system is at the end of its life.  Repainting will ensure the weatherproofing of the timber building.  Some limited areas of timber (three windowsills) have deteriorated to the extent that they must be replaced. 

6.5       Overall the works being proposed are priced at $81,841.21 excluding GST. All relevant costs of the heritage related works are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Prep and paint exterior, including replacement of 3 windowsills

                   $56,062

Preliminary & General

$2,200

Scaffolding

$19,681

Contractors margin

$3,897

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

Assistance

                   $81,841

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical, social, cultural, architectural significance to Canterbury, as well as contextual, technological and craftsmanship significance. Its ongoing repair and maintenance is worthy of support.  It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

 $40,920

 

Significance

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

6.8       There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    The Heritage Incentive grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’.  Heritage Incentive grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

6.11.1 Christchurch Recovery Strategy

6.11.2 Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

6.11.3 Christchurch District Plan

6.11.4 Heritage Conservation Policy

6.11.5 Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.11.6 New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.11.7 International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter, 2010

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$601,346

 

6.13    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the visitor industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.14    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.15    The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.16    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.17    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected.

6.18    A full conservation covenant is already registered against the title of the Canterbury Club building.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.20    The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. No resource consent will be required for these works.

6.21    The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and maintenance of this highly significant building.  This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The Canterbury Club will continue to be a landmark feature in the central city.

·     The works are exterior, therefore the benefits to the community will be highly visible.

·     With the completion of the repainting, the building will be maintained and protected, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building. 

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to repaint a single commercial building.  However the costs reflect the size and scale of the timber building. 

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be a lower level of financial support to the project.  Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works.  A lower grant of thirty percent ($24,552.00) is shown on the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options.  Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$24,552

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$61,7714

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for the maintenance and repair of a significant heritage building in a prominent location in the central city. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance for the Canterbury Club

33

 

 

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

Amanda Ohs - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

12.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

17/563737

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

027 222 2782

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500, 000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $44,900.00 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the protected heritage building located at 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering a 15 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature in the townscape and historic colonial streetscape of Lyttelton.

·     With the completion of the works outlined, the building will meet Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to a single building; however, the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2017/2018 financial year.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton is listed as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is not registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Ms Kerryn Beaton. The dwelling suffered considerable damage during the Canterbury earthquake sequence, and was ‘red stickered’. This included the collapse of the chimney and stack, and the red rock retaining wall foundations. The owners have not been able to return to the building since the earthquakes. The earthquake repairs are currently underway, funded by EQC and insurance. At the same time the owners are seeking to undertake maintenance and upgrade works which are not the result of earthquake damage, to enable them to move into a fully repaired, restored and conserved dwelling.

5.3       Work has begun to replace the roof and make the necessary repairs to the south wall. This is because the building is not watertight and the work is required urgently to protect the heritage fabric from further damage and loss. The operational guidelines allow for emergency works to be undertaken prior to a grant being approved; these items would be considered such necessary emergency works.

5.4       28 Dublin Street was constructed in 1883 as a purpose built boarding house. It remained in use for accommodation purposes for over 100 years, and was only converted to single use residency in 1990. Boarding houses were once a common feature of the New Zealand settlement, required to house the large, mobile, single male workforce necessary to service colonial society. It has social and cultural significance as the sole remaining purpose built boarding house listed in Christchurch or Lyttelton.

5.5       The dwelling is a two storey building constructed of a rusticated weatherboard façade with the side and rear walls clad in short run iron, a common feature of Lyttelton’s architecture following the 1870 fire. It has architectural and aesthetic significance for its utilitarian architecture, designed to maximise the usable and rentable space within.  The building has a landmark presence in Lyttelton, being built within Dublin Street’s close built colonial streetscape of mainly smaller cottages from the 1860s and 1870s. Its larger bulk and form make an important contribution to the colonial townscape. 

5.6       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to undertake deferred remedial maintenance and upgrades to protect the heritage fabric of the building. The owners and their contractors are working closely with Council heritage staff to ensure all the works undertaken follow best practice conservation principles to facilitate a positive heritage outcome. This includes the re-roofing of the dwelling and replacement of the south wall in short run, imperial profile corrugated iron to achieve a like-for-like replacement, rather than the use of long run “Color steel” which would result in the loss of the ‘ad hoc’ qualities of the exterior cladding and a loss of streetscape values. The works also include maintenance of the original sash windows; repair of the decayed wall structure; repair/replacement of the rotted weatherboards with rusticated boards machined to match the original, and new rainware and spouting.

5.7       With the completion of the works outlined the building will meet the NZ Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

 

 

 

Photograph September 2014, Brendan Smyth

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Replacement of roof and south wall with short run galvanised iron

$14,950

Repair and upgrade of decayed south wall structure

$20,908

Replacement of spouting and rainware

$4,132

Exterior repainting of north and east elevations

$4,908

Sash window maintenance, repairs and upgrades

$15,588

Repairs and upgrades to weatherboard cladding on west facade

$23,506

Scaffold

$5,807

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$89,799

 

6.2       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$44,900.00

 

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10

The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

6.5.1      Christchurch Recovery Strategy

6.5.2      Christchurch District Plan

6.5.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.5.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.5.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.5.6      International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$556,446

 

 

 

 

6.6       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.7       Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.8       Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.9       Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.10    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.11    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A ‘Limited Conservation Covenant’ will be required in association with this grant with a life of fifteen years being suggested as an appropriate length of time.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. No will be required for the works listed above.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to make an important contribution to the built colonial streetscape of Lyttelton’s townscape. 

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and meet Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and maintenance of the building.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant to a single building; however the sum is not significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2017/2018 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($26,940) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton at 30%

$26,940

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$574,406

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton Statement of Significance

46

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

13.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

Reference:

17/618505

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

9418052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $28,253 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the protected heritage building located at 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature in the evolution and heritage of Lyttelton and the development of Dampier Bay.

·     With the completion of the works outlined, the building will meet Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a significant grant for a single building; however, the sum is not a large proportion of the total grant funds for the 2017/2018 financial year.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton is listed as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is not registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT), however it is within the Lyttelton Township Historic Area. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owners of the building and applicants for the grant are Linda Goodwin and Andrew Scott. The building was the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding through a previous owner. A grant of $2,900 was made in December 2007 for works to the building. The Operational Guidelines allow for future grant applications 5 years after a grant is made.

Photograph June 2017, Brendan Smyth

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       26 Godley Quay, also known as Dampier House, is one of the earliest surviving residences in Canterbury. The building is a mixture of styles with the earliest part of the building, a small timber cottage dating from 1848-50, now forming the kitchen. There is a two-storied ‘tower-like’ structure on the eastern side, thought to be an early addition, which possibly started as a single storey structure that was added to at a later date. The larger part of the house has been built in the California Bungalow style, dating most likely from around the 1920s. The house is a mixture of timber weatherboard and board-and-batten construction.

6.2       The building has a social history directly associated with the Canterbury Association, through the Association Solicitor Christopher Dampier after whom it has been named. It is also connected to an early Canterbury run holder and a prominent shipwright. Its significance as an early colonial dwelling is coupled with is contextual significance among a group of heritage homes, and its part in the development of Dampier Bay.

6.3       The building sustained moderate damage during the 2010-11 earthquakes, and the level of ground water around it has changed causing the site to become considerably wetter. The extra damp ground, combined with the building settling in the years since the earthquakes, has led to dampness becoming a problem within the house. The works for which grant assistance is requested entail repairs and upgrades required to finish the work to the house following it being lifted to remedy the damp problems.

6.4       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to retain and protect the heritage fabric of the building. With the completion of the works outlined the building will meet the NZ Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

6.5       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Exterior cladding repair

$4,177

Roof

$972

External joinery repairs

$6,404

Rainwater goods

$1,728

Reinstatement of heritage features

$4,079

Floor repairs

$3,981

Internal joinery

$540

Upgrade works

$29,704

Professional Fees

$4,921

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$56,506

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$28,253

 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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

6.9       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Recovery Strategy

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

$28,253

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$323,301

 

6.11    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.15    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.16    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A Limited Conservation Covenant will be required in association with this grant with a life of twenty years being suggested as an appropriate length of time.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent and covenant consent will be required for the works.

6.19    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature in the evolution and heritage of Lyttelton and the development of Dampier Bay.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and meet Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and maintenance of the building.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a significant grant for a single building; however, the sum is not a large proportion of the total grant funds for the 2017/2018 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($16,952) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to 26 Godley Quay

$16,952

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$334,602

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - 26 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

57

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

14.    Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 26 May 2017

Reference:

17/605813

Contact:

Liz Ryley

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8153

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Multicultural Subcommittee held a meeting on 26 May 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Social and Community Development Committee for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Social and Community Development Committee

That the Social and Community Development Committee receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 26 May 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Multicultural Subcommittee - Minutes - 26 May 2017

62

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

16.    Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update June 2017

Reference:

17/605999

Contact:

Darren Moses

Darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz

021377023

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to be informed of the current status of the priority projects being delivered by Facilities Rebuild team.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       Not applicable to this information-only report. 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This information only report provides a quarterly programme update on some of the key Community Facilities Rebuild activities for June 2017.

4.2       A summary of the Community Facilities projects and Heritage Facilities can be found in Attachment One.

4.3       The programme in its entirety is currently scheduled to be completed by the end of the 17/18 financial year.  The programme is also tracking to be delivered within the budget envelope set by Council in the 2015-2025 LTP.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has committed to running a major earthquake repair and rebuild programme.  This work is undertaken by the Facilities Rebuild team on behalf of the Building Owners in Customer and Community Group.

5.2       Since 2012, this team have delivered numerous repairs and rebuild of key suburban Council facilities all over Christchurch City and across Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Social & Community Development Committee June 2017 Community Facilities Rebuild and Heritage Monthly Report_Attachment 1

69

 

 

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

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

 

17.    Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Members Update

Reference:

17/621522

Contact:

Alistair Pearson

Alistair.pearson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8465

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide a monthly status update on the projects being delivered by the Capital Delivery Major Facilities Team of the City Services-Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services.  

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Members Update report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       See attachment

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Major Facilities Projects Elected Members Update

124

 

 

Signatories

Author

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilites

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 July 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator