Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 16 August 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

11 August 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4 

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13  

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       48 Caledonian Road - Proposed Residents Parking ................................................... 15

C       9.       20 Carlyle Street Sydenham - Proposed P30 Restrictions.......................................... 23

C       10.     Tanner Street Woolston - Proposed P120 Restrictions.............................................. 31

C       11.     Olliviers Road Phillipstown - Proposed No Stopping Restriction............................. 39

C       12.     Buckleys Road - Proposed Alterations to Bus Stop, Taxi Stand, and Parking Restrictions outside Eastgate Mall.................................................................................................... 47

C       13.     Griffiths Avenue - Street Renewal Project.................................................................. 57

C       14.     Application to 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Basketball Coaching in Low Decile Schools - Pioneer Basketball Club..................................................................... 73

C       15.     Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society Inc - Sumner Museum Joinery.......................... 77

C       16.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 81

B       17.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 88 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 31 July 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

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

OR

There will be no public forum at this meeting

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 31 July 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

27 July 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00102

Part B

Apologies were accepted from Deon Swiggs for early departure and from Brenda Lowe Johnson for absence.

Alexandra Davids/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                         Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00103

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 be confirmed.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.44pm.

The meeting recommenced at 3.58pm.

 

 

13. Community Service Awards 2017 Presentation

 

During the adjournment Community Service Awards were presented to Wendy Burton and Brian Parker for their volunteer work in dealing with graffiti within the Community Board area.  Ms Burton and Mr Parker were not able to attend the Awards ceremony on 15 June 2017.

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1       Ruru Road, Bromley – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

             The scheduled deputation did not take place.

 

5.3       Temporary Skate Ramp - Sumner Village

             Mr Roydon Gage-Smart, business owner of Sumner, spoke to the Board regarding the proposed temporary skate ramp in Sumner. Mr Gage-Smart supported the concept of the skate ramp but raised issues regarding access to public toilets and perceived safety concerns at the proposed location. Clause 8 of these minutes refers.

Following questions from the Board, the Chairperson thanked Mr Gage-Smart for his deputation.

 

5.2       Temporary Skate Ramp – Sumner Village

             Ms Kimberley Mossman and Ms Charlotte Hudson, local residents of Sumner, spoke to the Board regarding the proposed temporary skate ramp in Sumner. Ms Mossman and Ms Hudson support the concept of the temporary skate ramp within the wider projects connecting the community.  Clause 8 of these minutes refers.

Following questions from the Board, the Chairperson thanked Ms Mossman and Ms Hudson for their deputation.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00104

That Standing Order 12.1 be temporarily suspended to enable the presenters and the Board to further discuss matters arising from the deputations.

Sara Templeton/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00105

At the conclusion of Clause 5.2 the Board resolved that Standing Order 12.1 be resumed.

 

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

5.4       Temporary Skate Ramp - Sumner Village

Mr Greg Brown, speaking on behalf of his mother who is a resident of Nayland Street, Sumner, spoke to the Board regarding the proposed temporary skate ramp.  Mr Brown addressed the noise level and impact on nearby residents.  Clause 8 of these minutes refers.

Following questions from the Board, the Chairperson thanked Mr Brown for his deputation.

 

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 3:41 pm.

 

5.5       Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan - Community Engagement and Feedback

Ms Janet Begg, local resident of Somerfield, spoke to the Board regarding the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.  Ms Begg acknowledged the considerations and implications of the Plan.  Clause 9 of these minutes refers.

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

7.   Ruru Road Bromley - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00106 (Staff Recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 95m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 28 metres.

2.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 204m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres.

3.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the south side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 64m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 55 metres.

4.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the south side of Ruru Road commencing at a point 177m east of its intersection with Maces Road and extending in an easterly direction for 47 metres.

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

8.   Sumner Skate Temporary Ramp

 

Board Comment

The Board  identified the need for part of the noise level monitoring to include residential sites in close proximity to the proposed temporary skate ramp, and multi-storey readings.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the proposed location for the Sumner Community Temporary Skate Ramp on legal road at the corner of Nayland and Wakefield Streets, Sumner.

a.         The proposed location is subject to resource consent.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00107

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the proposed location for the Sumner Community Temporary Skate Ramp on legal road reserve at the corner of Nayland and Wakefield Streets, Sumner.

a.         The Board note that the use of the proposed location maybe subject to obtaining a resource consent.

2.         Request staff to seek confirmation from the Christchurch Roading Policing Manager, New Zealand Police, that the proposed location is safe.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

Sara Templeton left the meeting at 4:27 pm.

Sara Templeton returned to the meeting at 4:30 pm.

 

9.   Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan - Community Engagement and Feedback

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Support the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan in its current form.

2.         Support the Spatial Plan as a planning tool for staff to accommodate the impact of future design plans.

 

 

Community Board Recommendations LCHB/2017/00109  (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends that the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Support the purpose of the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan. 

2.         Support the value of sensory gardens including a fragrance component.

3.         Request that hidden spaces be kept and new ones be created.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.44pm.

The meeting recommenced at 4.58pm.

 

10. Applications to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Fund - Woolston Friendship Club, Kidsfirst Kindergartens Linwood and New Beginnings Preschool Incorporated.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00110 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $598 to Woolston Friendship Club towards bus hire cost.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00111

2.         Approves a grant of $1,000 to Kidsfirst Kindergarten Linwood towards trips and cultural    experiences.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00112

3.         Approves a grant of $3,000 to New Beginnings Preschool Incorporated towards installing soft fall playground grass.

Alexandra Davids/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                          Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.44pm

The meeting recommenced at 5.10pm.

 

Jake McLellan left the meeting at 05:36 pm.

 

11. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Advise which items the Board would like considered for inclusion in Newsline.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00114

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Have a progress update on the Temporary Skate Ramp in Sumner considered for inclusion in Newsline.

3.         Delegate to the Board Chairperson to submit the Board’s submission to the River and Marine Facility Bylaw.

4.         Request detailed staff advice on the proposed Woolston Cut dredging project.

5.         Request staff to work with men’s sheds within the Community Board area to explore opportunities to provide park/reserve furnishings.

6.         Request a landscape concept plan for Radley Park that takes into account the dog park, cycle ways and community gardens based on the Roimata community garden concept plan.

Yani Johanson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

12. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received and noted the following information from members:

1.         Flooding Maps – The Board discussed the recent storm which created a lot of flooding within the Board area.  The Board raised the need to have updated flooding maps for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area and a briefing from staff on this matter.

2.         Principals Meeting – The Board requested that staff consider a new date for the August 2017 Principals’ Breakfast and a response from the Mayor’s office regarding a letter to principals.

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6.06pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 31st DAY OF JULY 2017

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/872538

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Dr Seddon-Smith

Request for Disabled Parking Place

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Correspondence Report dated 16 August 2017

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Dr R Seddon-Smith

14

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

8.        48 Caledonian Road - Proposed Residents Parking

Reference:

17/275949

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

941-8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of residents’ only parking space on Caledonian Road, in accordance with the attached plan.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to vehicles displaying residents’ permits only at any time outside 48 Caledonian Road, this being on the eastern side of Caledonian Road commencing at a distance of 14 metres from its intersection with Purchas Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install Resident’s parking scheme (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides residents’ only Parking for properties which comply with the residents’ only parking operational criteria and are located in an area of high parking demand.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Caledonian Road classified as a local road and the primary adjacent land use is zoned as residential. Due to the proximity with nearby medical centres and the CBD, residents on Caledonian Road compete for parking spaces with staff and commuters.

5.2       Residents’ Only Parking spaces are considered if:

5.2.1   The street is usually parked out by a non-residential activity (e.g. commuter parking or spill over parking from nearby activities)

5.2.2   There is no off-street parking at all on the property

5.2.3   There is no space on the property that could be converted to off-street parking

5.2.4   There is no private parking available within a reasonable distance

5.3       48 Caledonian Road north of Purchas Street meets all of the above requirements.  It is proposed to establish one residents’ only parking space on Caledonian Road to provide for this property.

5.4      

6.   Option 1 - Install Residents’ Only Parking on Caledonian Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option includes:

·   Install residents’ only parking spaces for one property in an area of high parking demand, which has applied for a residents’ only parking permit, meets the requirements for residents’ only parking, and where residents compete with all day commuters and spill over parking from the nearby medical facilities.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The original request for this proposal arose from the adjacent property owner. No other properties are affected by the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $200 for new signs and road markings.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides residents’ only parking for properties which comply with the residents’ only parking operational criteria, and where residents are forced to compete with commuter parking and spill over parking from the nearby medical facilities.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Makes one parking space on Caledonian Road unavailable to all except residents with permits.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Reason for inconsistency – CCC Parking Strategy prioritises residents parking over short term and commuter parking on Residential streets.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maintains the unrestricted parking on Caledonian Road.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Caledonian Road residents continue to compete with commuter parking and spill over parking from nearby activities.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Caledonian Rd residents parking location plan

20

b

Caledonian Rd residents parking site plan

21

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

9.        20 Carlyle Street Sydenham - Proposed P30 Restrictions

Reference:

17/749025

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of P30 restrictions the south side of Carlyle Street between Colombo Street and Buchan Street. Furthermore this relates to the removal of an existing bus stop located on the north side of this section of Carlyle Street. Both proposals are in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The two existing spaces of interest are currently subject to P120 restrictions which are no longer considered appropriate for the adjacent businesses.  Bus services no longer operate along this street.

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

Origin of Report

1.4       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated adjacent to the proposal. The local business requested additional parking opportunities for short stay purposes. A site visit by staff also resulted in the recommendation to remove the bus stop markings, which are now redundant.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke the existing 120 minute restriction on the south side of Carlyle Street commencing at a point 11 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for 29 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes at any time on the south side of Carlyle Street commencing at a point 16 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for 24 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes at any time on the south side of Carlyle Street commencing at a point 11 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for 5 metres.

4.         Revoke the bus stop located on the north side of Carlyle Street commencing at a point 15 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for 14 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 –  Install P30 restrictions and remove the bus stop (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to local businesses on Colombo Street and Carlyle Street

·     Provides opportunity for deliveries and couriers servicing nearby businesses

·     Removes and potential confusion relating to the parking opportunity at the bus stop location

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business expressed concern regarding the availability of short stay parking on Carlyle Street near Colombo Street. Some short stay opportunities exist on Colombo Street in a southbound direction, though are consistently occupied. On Carlyle Street the restrictions are predominantly for two hour periods.

5.2       Due to the typical customer demands in that area, additional P30 parking restrictions have been requested.

5.3       Upon investigation, council staff observed that there are insufficient short stay opportunities in the area of interest for the majority of the day. Off-street parking opportunities in are predominantly for staff and delivery turning activity.

5.4       Two additional P30 spaces in place of two hour parking would be more appropriate assist local business activity.

5.5       An existing bus bay marking is in place at the western end of Carlyle Street near its intersection with Colombo Street. The bus stop post and flag was removed at least 5 years ago and services have not operated along this street since before 2011. There are no proposals to re-introduce services.

5.6       Despite the markings, on-street parking takes place on a regular basis within this space. Consequently staff consider it appropriate to remove the bus stop markings to avoid any possible confusion as to the status of parking at this location.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P30 restrictions and remove bus stop (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P30 parking restrictions on the south side of Carlyle Street and remove the bus stop on the north side of the same street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 500 Colombo Street and 1-9 Carlyle Street.

6.5       No responses in objection to the scheme or requesting an amendment were received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $300 to install signs and remove road markings.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.11    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides increased parking turnover of spaces to assist customer access

·   Provide opportunities for access by deliveries and courier vehicles

·   Eliminates confusion relating to parking on-street at the bus stop location

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the P120 parking and bus stop.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for thirty minute restrictions to support provide a higher turnover of parking spaces and support customer demands.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the transport demands of the local businesses.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

20 Carlyle Street site plan

28

b

20 Carlyle Street location plan

29

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

10.    Tanner Street Woolston - Proposed P120 Restrictions

Reference:

17/751823

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of P120 restrictions the east side of Tanner Street between Garlands Road and Maunsell Street. This proposal is in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business located nearby.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes at any time on the east side of Tanner Street commencing at a point 91 metres south of its intersection with Garlands Road and extending in a southern direction for 19 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P120 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to businesses at and adjacent to 5 Tanner Street, within a short walking distance.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The business owner at 5/1 Tanner Street contacted the city council, on behalf of local businesses operators to report difficulties for customer access to their businesses. The local businesses are a combination of retail, leisure (Uprising boulder climbing gym) and cafés. 

5.2       Currently there are no parking restrictions on Tanner Street and is often occupied on both sides by staff at nearby businesses for the whole working day. Residents are generally on the west side of the street and have their own off street parking.

5.3       At 5 Tanner Street there are a group of local businesses. Private parking is available on-site as specifically reserved spaces, together with provision for deliveries; these spaces are designated for the business owners and residents, as specified in the resource consent. No provision is available for customers.

5.4       Staff consulted with local businesses who considered that a P120 proposal would be preferred. The Boulder gym currently attracts most customers in that area who generally book sessions of 1-2 hours throughout the week.

5.5       Upon investigation, council staff observed that the spaces are occupied for the majority of the day, especially during the week and little turnover occurs. Staff. There are other opportunities for long term parking on street, which would require a longer walking distance of a few minutes more, to the area.

5.6       Staff consider that the installation of the P120 restrictions will increase parking turnover and assist customer access at businesses at or adjacent to 5 Tanner Street.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P120 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P120 parking restrictions on the east side of Tanner Street in accordance with Attachment A.

6.2       These restrictions would be in effect at any time since the business hours extend through the whole week.

6.3       This option provides three car lengths of P120 parking space on the street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       This option was requested by business operators. 

6.7       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 5 to 27 Tanner Street.

6.8       No responses in objection to the scheme or requesting an amendment were received. One phone call response was received in support of the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $300 to install signs and remove road markings.

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

6.12    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.14    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Not applicable

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to the businesses located at 5 Tanner Street and adjacent to it.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for No Stopping Restrictions to support the safe movement of commercial vehicles accessing substations on both sides.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the transport demands of the local businesses.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

5 Tanner St P120 site plan

36

b

5 Tanner St P120 location plan

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

11.    Olliviers Road Phillipstown - Proposed No Stopping Restriction

Reference:

17/751972

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping (at any time) parking restrictions along both sides of a short section of Olliviers Road between Harrow Road and Inglis Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident, who was concerned about inappropriate parking taking place, resulting in road safety risks.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the west side of Olliviers Road commencing at a point 65m south of its intersection with Harrow Road and extending in an southerly direction for 16 metres.

2.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the east side of Olliviers Road commencing at a point 61m south of its intersection with Harrow Road and extending in an southerly direction for 24 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves safety for drivers travelling in both directions on Olliviers Road.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

5.   Context/Background

5.1       This street is residential in nature with properties on both sides for the whole of its length. Previously a kerb buildout was installed by the council on both sides close to no. 106 Olliviers Road. At this section of the street, the road width kerb to kerb is only 6m, which is the equivalent to two cars side by side.

5.2       Whilst each property has parking available off-street, sporadic parking takes place on both sides of the street.

5.3       A resident of Olliviers Road raised a concern that some residents or their visitors were parking on street, adjacent to the kerb buildout. This resulted in a reduced street width at that location and resulted in one-way operation on a ‘give and take’ basis.

5.4       This was reported to lead to problems for residential traffic, since the road is intended for two way operation and that larger vehicles such as waste trucks and emergency vehicles would have particular difficulty, potentially leading to vehicle damage or vehicles driving over roadside landscaping and damaging these areas.

5.5       Upon investigation, based on site observations and measurement of road widths, council staff concur that the reported problem takes place and that the concerns are justified.

5.6       It is considered by staff that no stopping restrictions should have previously been implemented at the time of the buildout construction and that they are warranted to ensure safe two way operation is maintained at all times.

5.7      

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

Option Description

6.1       Install no Stopping Restrictions in accordance with Attachment A. These restrictions would be in effect at all times.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to property owners and tenants at 101-112 Olliviers Road.

6.5       No responses were received in objection nor requesting an amendment.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $100 to install road markings.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.11    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the safety for two way vehicles travelling along Olliviers Road.

·   Ensures that sufficient width is consistently available for emergency vehicles and other large vehicles such as refuse collection trucks.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Is inconsistent with the community request for safety to be improved. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not contribute to the improvement of the efficiency and safety of the transport network.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Olliviers Road NSR site plan

44

b

Olliviers Road NSR location plan

45

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

12.    Buckleys Road - Proposed Alterations to Bus Stop, Taxi Stand, and Parking Restrictions outside Eastgate Mall

Reference:

17/750811

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

Peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941 6303

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve alterations to the bus stop, taxi stand, and parking time restrictions on Buckleys Road outside Eastgate Mall.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from Environment Canterbury, and is also responding to separate concerns raised by a member of the public about difficulty in finding a park outside Eastgate mall. 

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 comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

Revoke existing restrictions

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 263 metres be revoked.

Reinstate No Stopping in Left turn lane

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 63 metres.

P5 Loading Zone

3.         Approve that a 5 minute Loading Zone be installed on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at a point 63 metres northeast of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

P30 Parking

4.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum time of 30 minutes on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at a point 89 metres northeast of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

Reinstate No Stopping by pedestrian crossing buildout

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at a point 159 metres northeast of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

Taxi Stand

6.         Approve that a Taxi Stand be installed on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at a point 177 metres northeast of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.

Bus Stop

7.         Approve that a marked Bus Stop be installed on the southeast side of Buckleys Road commencing at a point 206 metres northeast of its intersection with Linwood Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 57 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Alter the bus stop, taxi stand and parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides additional capacity for the bus stop, which often exceeds capacity at present.

·     Optimises and clarifies the existing timed parking restrictions to provide more short term parking opportunities.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     A small reduction in the capacity of the taxi stand. The taxi federation have indicated that they are not opposed to this small reduction in this case.

·     Reduction in size of the existing loading zone.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Linwood / Eastgate PT Hub

5.1       The Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board reviewed the options for a Linwood / Eastgate PT Hub at its meeting on 3rd April 2017.  The Board recommended to Council:

Request staff further evaluate the preferred option (Buckleys Road Facilities Upgrade) for consideration by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board in time for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan.

5.2       At its meeting on 11th May 2017, Council added:

Request staff to develop an integrated transport plan for the immediate area taking into consideration all of the works that are occurring and are proposed.

5.3       Staff are working to include the Linwood/Eastgate PT Hub in the 2018 Long term Plan. Work on the integrated transport plan will start in August and should be completed by June 2018.

5.4       The changes to the bus stop proposed in this report are minor operational changes to allow the bus stop to operate safely and efficiently in the immediate future and will complement any changes in the medium to long term.

Bus Stop/Taxi Stand

5.5       On the south east side of Buckleys Road adjacent to Eastgate mall is a 42 metre bus stop, followed by a 42 metre taxi stand. Buckleys Road is a 4 lane Major Arterial road, separated by a solid median island, with two southwest bound lanes and a cycle lane at this location. The speed limit along this part of Buckleys Road is 50 kilometres per hour, dropping down from 60 kilometres per hour approximately 150 metres north east of the bus stop.

5.6       In March 2017, when Woodham Road was reopened to traffic, the Orbiter bus route returned to this bus stop for the first time since August 2015. The following services now use this location; Orbiter (clockwise), Yellow Line, 80, 140, 145 and 535. This bus stop is a timing point for all services and is also a terminus for three services.

5.7       At 42 metres, the bus stop can comfortably accommodate three buses at a time but there are often occasions in each hour that four buses need to be accommodated. When the bus stop is at full capacity, a fourth bus is unable to pull up beside the kerb and must stop partially blocking the traffic lane.

5.8       The taxi stand has been observed to not be utilised to its full capacity. A parking survey on 4th May 2017, counting the number of taxi’s using the taxi stand and buses using the bus stop, found that the bus stop is at or exceeding its existing capacity (of three buses) 70% of the time. The taxi stand is at or exceeding its capacity of seven 2% of the time.

5.9       It is proposed to extend the bus stop 15 metres into the taxi stand to more efficiently use the available kerbside road space. This will reduce the capacity of the taxi stand from seven to five, and increase the capacity of the bus stop from three to four full sized buses.

Background: Parking restrictions

5.10    South of the pedestrian buildout and crossing point, there is 96 metres of kerbside parking available. A member of the public lodged a service request with Council, saying that it is difficult to find a parking space to pick up prescriptions from the pharmacy, and requested a mobility parking space.

5.11    There is insufficient kerbside space to provide a safe mobility parking space on Buckleys Road at this location, as parallel mobility parking spaces must be wider to accommodate side loading wheelchair hoists. This would place wheelchair users in the path of oncoming traffic in a high speed environment. The Eastgate mall car park has a number of mobility parking spaces in the off street car park which is a safer location for wheelchair users.

5.12    Upon site investigation staff found that part of this parking is signposted as a P10 Loading Zone, and there is one “P30” sign that is barely readable, and the loading zone lacks the road markings required. The “P30” sign appears to have been in the same state since August 2015 when it was photographed in google street view. Due to the length of time that this has been left in this state it was decided to rationalise the parking restrictions along this stretch of Buckleys Road at the same time as the bus stop and taxi stand changes are made.

5.13    Reinstating time restrictions will encourage turnover and will help to ensure that there parking opportunities for mobility permit holders, as they are permitted to park in regular restricted parking areas for double the length of time if they hold a mobility permit.

5.14    The loading zone is a convenient place for vehicles to park to deliver goods to various businesses in Eastgate mall, as it is close to the food court, McDonalds, and to a loading bay for Lincraft and Number One Shoes.

5.15    Short term parking is in high demand in this vicinity due to the vicinity of the food court, café, McDonalds and the pharmacy just inside the doors of Eastgate Mall. Pre-consultation feedback from Eastgate mall management indicates that their customers have indicated to them in the past that 30 minutes is an appropriate limit, as it is not always possible for customers to pick up food or prescriptions in a 10 or 15 minute timeframe.

5.16    It is proposed to split this area between 30 minute parking and a 5 minute loading zone. It is not necessary to provide longer term parking (60 minutes or more) due to the large amount of longer term parking available nearby in the Mall car park.

5.17    A parking survey during peak Christmas hours in December 2016 found that at peak times, there were at most 12 cars parked along this stretch of road, and the 12th car did not remain for more than 5 minutes. The majority of the time 7-10 cars were parked along this stretch of road. The proposed 30 minute parking will provide eleven parking spaces, and an additional four loading zone spaces (or less space for larger vehicles). This will cater to the peak observed demand while still providing a loading zone for the purposes of loading and unloading.

6.   Option 1 - Approve the proposed changes (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       As shown in Attachment A, approve alterations to the bus stop, taxi stand, and approve the 30 minute parking and 5 minute loading zone in Attachment B.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers (Eastgate Mall management and the tenant businesses), engagement with the Taxi Federation, and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the bus service operator.

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       Environment Canterbury, the Taxi federation, Eastgate Mall and its tenant businesses are specifically affected by this option. 

6.6       Environment Canterbury supports this option.  Comments received state:

6.6.1   “Environment Canterbury strongly support the proposed extension of the Eastgate Mall, Buckleys Rd bus stop. The bus stop is used as a Terminus location for two of our network Suburban Link services as well as having to accommodate a further Link service a Connector service and two high frequency Metro Lines. The current stop length is insufficient to adequately cater for the demand at this location. The proposed extension will better accommodate multiple bus arrivals and result in a much improved and safer environment for customers.”

6.7       No formal written response was received, however a Taxi Federation representative indicated in a phone conversation that the taxi federation supports this option.

6.7.1   The major users of this taxi stand do not have any problems with the reduction from seven to five. The majority of their business at Eastgate mall is booked by phone and taxis do not generally need to wait for hire at this location.

6.7.2   They did note that since the after hours medical centre opened up this taxi stand does get high usage from one particular company.

6.8       No formal written response was received from Eastgate Mall management.  However, the plan was developed pre-consultation in collaboration with Eastgate Mall management.

6.9       No feedback was received from any of the Eastgate mall businesses.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $600

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

6.13    Funding source – Traffic Operations Budgets

Legal Implications

6.14    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

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

6.16    Follows best practice by adhering to the recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009), relating to the amount of parking space required for a bus stop for four buses. 

Risks and Mitigations   

6.17    Risk - Illegal parking: caused by road users parking in the marked bus stop box and/or on the ‘No Stopping’ lines.  This will result in the bus stop being difficult or impossible to access for buses, buses stopping in the traffic lane and inconveniencing passengers, or making it impossible for mobility impaired passengers to board the bus due no suitable places being available to deploy a wheelchair ramp.

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

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

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provision of the additional space for this bus stop has the potential to improve the operational performance and accessibility of the bus lines and passengers that use the bus stop.

·   Optimises the relative amounts of 30 minute parking and loading zone, based on empirical data.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of part of the taxi stand.

·   Loss of ‘de facto’ unrestricted parking spaces (due to missing signage)

·   Reduction in size of the existing loading zone.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing, make no changes to the parking, bus stop or taxi stand.

Significance

7.2       See section 6.2 – 6.3.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See section 6.4

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See section 6.5 to 6.9

7.5       Environment Canterbury do not support this option, and during consultation there was no support for this option from any other stakeholders.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Parking Strategy 2003

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – This option does not prioritise parking for buses over all other uses on an arterial road.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not Applicable

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    The existing

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    Risk: Buses continue to be unable to access the bus stop due to insufficient capacity. This will result in stopped buses blocking the traffic lane, causing oncoming traffic on Buckleys Road to change lanes, which may result in an accident.

7.11.1 Treatment: Option 1 is the preferred treatment. There are no other short term treatments available.

7.11.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is High due to the high likelihood of occurrence, and the traffic volumes on Buckleys Road.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not Applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not Applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Makes no changes to on street parking restrictions

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This does not address a known safety risk and capacity issue at the bus stop on Buckleys Road.

·   This option leaves a section of high demand parking on Buckleys Road outside Eastgate Mall as unrestricted

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Buckleys Road - Eastgate Mall Proposed Bus Stop Extension and Taxi Stand Reduction Plan For Board Approval

54

b

Buckleys Road - Eastgate Mall Proposed P30 and P5 Loading Zone Plan For Board Approval

55

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Rodgers - Graduate Transport Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

13.    Griffiths Avenue - Street Renewal Project

Reference:

17/684138

Contact:

Sandra Novais

Sandra.novais@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-8018

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is advice the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the outcome of community consultation and to request they approve the Griffiths Avenue – Street renewal project to proceed to detailed design, tender and implementation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following the completion of public consultation on the project. The first information memo was sent to the Community Board on the 25 January 2017 and an updated one on the 2 May 2017 prior to consultation.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix.  Staff have considered the significance of the decision to be made by the Community Board.  Their assessment is that the matter is of medium significance for the following reasons:

2.1.2   There may be some community interest in relation to the contaminated ground conditions in this area, and how the construction works will manage this, this project provides some positive benefits for the community.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the general layout of Griffiths Avenue renewal as detailed in Attachment A, including new kerb alignments, landscaping, surface treatments and line markings.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.19 Maintain Road infrastructure

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1: Do-minimum: kerb and channel renewal and realignment at the Rudds Road intersection (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - kerb and channel renewal and carriageway

·     Option 3 - kerb and channel renewal and carriageway reconstruction with realignment at the Rudds Road intersection

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include, and will be reassessed at the detailed design phase:

·     Within budget and achieve the lowest cost-effective solution that meets all objectives

·     Renews the kerb and channel and street lighting to current CCC standards

·     Improve visually and mobility impaired provisions at intersections

·     Addresses storm water ponding

·     Addresses tail scrape concerns at vehicle crossings

·     Installs new landscaping as appropriate

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     minimal effect on the adjacent carriageway

 

5.   Context/Background

Griffiths Ave

5.1       Griffiths Avenue is 240 metres long with a north-south orientation. Griffiths Avenue is within a 50 km/hr speed limit area, has uncontrolled tee-intersection layouts at either end, is not on a bus route and has no greater strategic alignment, such as a freight or cycle route. There are no current traffic counts therefore the estimated traffic volume is 200–500 vehicles per day. Griffiths Avenue has a narrow road reserve of 14m with narrow berms adjacent boundary lines. There are no existing street or protected trees and there are overhead power lines on the eastern side.

5.2       All land adjacent to the road is residential. Griffiths Avenue is within the immediate area of Linfield Park (including the Cultural Recreational Sports Club) to the east, Bromley Park and Rangers Park to the south and Memorial Park Cemetery to the Southeast.

5.3       Figure 1 shows the location of the scheme, in red, in the context of the surrounding area.

Figure 1 – Griffiths Ave location Plan

Project Objectives

5.4       The need for the project was identified due to the existing damaged kerb and channel that results in ponding of water and no longer performs as intended.

5.5       Based on the ‘need for the project’ and consideration of the background information the objectives of the project were to develop options that:

5.5.1      Meet budget and achieve the lowest cost-effective solution that meets all objectives

5.5.2      Renew the kerb and channel

5.5.3      Maintain or improve user safety along Griffiths Avenue and at the intersections

5.5.4      Renew street lighting to current CCC standards

5.5.5      Improve visually and mobility impaired provisions at intersections

5.5.6      Address stormwater ponding

5.5.7      Install stormwater runoff treatment infrastructure at Rudds Road intersection as required

5.5.8      Address tail scrape concerns at private accesses

Community Consultation

5.6       Consultation on the Griffiths Avenue street renewal project was undertaken from 8 May 2017 to 2 June 2017.  The submission form asked submitters to indicate whether yes, they generally support the plan or no, they generally do not support the plan.  There was also an opportunity to add any additional comments on the plans.

5.7       Approximately 200 consultation leaflets (refer attachments B and C) were hand delivered to properties along Griffiths Avenue and the immediately surrounding streets, including 42 absentee land owners.  These leaflets were also posted and emailed to 180 key stakeholders.  The project was also posted on the Council’s “Have Your Say” website https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-andsubmissions/haveyoursay/show/27

5.8       The project team were available to discuss the project at a street meeting held on the corner of Griffiths Avenue and Rudds Road in Linwood on 15 May 2017.  There were two residents who came and spoke with the project team.  These residents passed on some useful local knowledge to the team, and were supportive of the project.

5.9       At the close of the consultation, 5 submissions were received with 5 (100%) generally supporting the plan.

No.

Sub ID

Comments

Project Team Comments

1.   

2177

The Canterbury West Coast District of the NZAA is in support of the proposed kerb and channel renewal project.

Thanks for your submission.

2.   

2176

Thanks for your submission.

3.   

1768

Sorry, we couldn't attend the meeting as we were on vacation.  We support the reworking of the gutter since our property is currently the direct recipient of the pooling that happens.
With regards to the attempts to deter boy racers, there is more a problem with people speeding down the road with the curvature acting as a slingshot for people than there is of people doing burnouts or driving donuts (not sure what the proper lingo is). Although that does occasionally happen. It would be preferable if there were some speed bumps put in place to slow drivers down.  With regards to adding greenery to the intersection, the tree that you are proposing to put in on the Rudds Road side at 43 Rudds Road may block the view for drivers attempting to turn right onto Rudds Road from Griffiths Ave. Given the volume of cars that already park on the road in our area further blocking the line of sight cannot be a good thing. I guess it depends on how big the new tree is when it is put in the ground and how fast it grows.
The consultation paper says it's going to be low shrubbery under 600mm - which is great as long as it stays that low - again, it could end up blocking line of sight.  As for the choice in trees - couldn't we have something that belongs in NZ already? Do we need more beech trees?

Griffiths Ave is not a through route, therefore it is likely boy racer activity is by local residents. With the short length of Griffiths Ave (250m), narrow width (7m) and no recorded crashes in the last 10-years the installation of traffic calming (speed bumps) is not supported.

 

Intersection sight distance with the new alignment and proposed tree is comparable to the existing layout. Agree the tree could further limit sight distance with low foliage, therefore taller species will be planted with limbs below 2m removed to minimise potential sight distance impacts.

 

The fully grown height of shrubbery will be 600mm, therefore minimising impacts on sight distance and maintenance requirements.

 

The vast majority of trees and shrubs planted by the council are native however we often use exotic trees in the street berm  as they tend to do better in that harsh environment  than the natives. Also exotics are more readily available in large grade so they can be trimmed up to give clear sight lines. The beech is a hardy species and should do well in this street environment.

4.   

1750

What about the cnr of Rudds Rd and McGregors Rd.  Do we need to put a small aisle to divide it

Thanks for your submission.

 

Rudds Road and McGregors Road work is outside the scope of this project.

5.   

1572

The plan looks good to me.  I am on the corner, and will be more affected than most, but think it should go ahead

Thanks for your submission.

 

5.10    All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.  All submissions with names but without address and contact details are available publicly online at https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Griffiths-Avenue-submissions-WITHOUT-addresses-and-project-team-responses-July-2017.pdf

 

6.   Options Considered

6.1       Option 1- Do-minimum - kerb and channel renewal and realignment at the Rudds Road intersection (preferred option).

Option Description

Assessment by the project team concluded that the do-minimum is the preferred option based on lowest cost while achieving the project objectives.

The preferred option was selected based on achieving the project objectives above and it is shown in the attachment to this report.

The do-minimum consists of the following physical works:

·    Replacement of the damaged kerb and flat channel with new kerb and flat channel along the existing kerb line, retaining the existing 7m carriageway width

·    Reducing the kerb radii at the intersections to 5m

·    A curve at the south end of Griffiths Avenue teeing up the intersection with Rudds Road.

·    Shoulder reconstruction along new kerb line

·    Footpath reconstruction

·    Re-seal of footpath and driveways – re-grade driveways where necessary and possible to mitigate tail scrape issues

·    Installation of tactile pavers at the intersection pedestrian crossing points

Due to insufficient pavement depth and road shape at Rudds Rd a review is required at detailed design phase to extent of carriageway to be reconstructed.

Implementation of this option will require a Resource Consent from the Christchurch City Council for removal and disposal of the excavation material contaminated with coal tar and a National Environmental Standard (NES) contamination investigation, also related to the coal tar.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

The residents who own property or reside in homes along Griffiths Avenue in Linwood are specifically affected by this option due to the implication of any physical construction works.  Their views are included in the ‘Community Consultation’ of this report (from section 5.6 to 5.10).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation – The preliminary estimate for this street renewal is $500,590 and it is within budget in line with the LTP, which are funded from the Street Renewal programme.

Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no additional maintenance costs.

Funding source – This project is funded from the Street Renewals Program Capital funds.

Legal Implications

There are no legal implications beyond Christchurch City Council’s rights as the Road Controlling Authority for this street.

Risks and Mitigations   

The risk of the contaminated land will be managed through a site management plan.

There is a risk of adverse public reaction, and damage to the Council’s reputation if the project did not proceed after consulting with the public on the preferred scheme option for the road. Option funded by LTP.

Implementation

Implementation dependencies - the street renewal project is dependent upon the completion of water works. These works were completed by SCIRT back in 2014.

Implementation timeframe – the construction of the street renewal is planned to commence in the second half of 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option include, and will be reassessed at the detailed design phase:

a)     Within budget and achieve the lowest cost-effective solution that meets all objectives

b)     Renews the kerb and channel and street lighting to current CCC standards

c)      Improves visually and mobility impaired provisions at intersections

d)     Addresses storm water ponding

e)     Addresses tail scrape concerns at vehicle crossings

f)      Installs new landscaping as appropriate

The disadvantages of this option include:

a)     Minimal effect on the adjacent carriageway

6.2       Option 2 - Kerb and channel renewal and carriageway.

Option Description

Option 2 consists of the following:

·     Replacement of kerb and flat Channel with new kerb and flat Channel along the existing kerb line, retaining the existing 7m carriageway width.

·     Full Pavement reconstruction.

·     Reduce the kerb radii at the intersections to 5m.

·     Narrowing the intersections to encourage lower vehicle turning speeds and reduce the pedestrian crossing distance.

·     Landscaping opportunity created with narrowing the intersection at Rudds Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community views were not obtained on this option. They were only obtained for the preferred option. There is general support from the community on the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which now includes this road renewal.

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation - $780,000

Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no additional maintenance costs.

Funding source – LTP Street Renewal Program

Legal Implications

No legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations    

The risk of the contaminated land will be managed through a site management plan.

Implementation

Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option include:

a)    The same of option 1  with carriageway reconstruction

The disadvantages of this option include:

a)  Cost estimate does not meet budget by $300k

b)  No realignment of Rudds Rd

 

6.3       Option 3 - Kerb and channel renewal and carriageway reconstruction with realignment at the Rudds Road intersection Option Description

Option 3 consists of the following:

·        Replacement of kerb and flat Channel with new kerb and flat Channel along the existing kerb line, retaining the existing 7m carriageway width.

·        Full Pavement reconstruction.

·        Reducing the kerb radii at the intersections to 5m

·        Narrowing the intersections to encourage lower vehicle turning speeds and reduce the pedestrian crossing distance.

·        A curve at the south end of Griffiths Ave Teeing up the intersection with Rudds Road.

·        Landscaping opportunity’s created with the narrowing and curved intersection at Rudds Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community views were not obtained on this option. They were only obtained for the preferred option. There is general support from the community on the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which now includes this road renewal.

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation - $880,000

Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no additional maintenance costs

Funding source – LTP Street Renewal Program

Legal Implications

No legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations    

The risk of the contaminated land will be managed through a site management plan.

Implementation

Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option include:

a)   The same of option 1 plus carriageway reconstruction

The disadvantages of this option include:

a)   Cost estimate does not meet budget by 400k

6.4       Option 4 – Do nothing

Option Description

The road to remain as it is. No renewal.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community views were not obtained on this option because it does not meet the requirements of the Council Asset Management Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which now includes this road renewal.

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation – nil.

Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There will be additional maintenance costs if the road stays the way is.

Funding source – n/a

Legal Implications

Does not meet requirements for CCC asset maintenance plan.

Risks and Mitigations    

The risk of the contaminated land will be managed as required.

Implementation

Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of this option include:

b)  No change

The disadvantages of this option include:

c)   Option does not meet requirements for CCC asset maintenance plan.

d)  This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, specifically the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which now includes this road renewal.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Consultation Plan Griffiths Ave renewal

67

b

Griffiths Avenue Public Information Leaflet

68

c

Griffiths Avenue Feedback Form

70

 

 

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

Sandra Novais - Project Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 


 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 


 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

14.    Application to 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Basketball Coaching in Low Decile Schools - Pioneer Basketball Club

Reference:

17/584506

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00056219

Pioneer Basketball Club

Basketball Coaching in Low Decile Schools

$4,768

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Pioneer Basketball Club.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $1,200 to Pioneer Basketball Club towards Basketball Coaching in Low Decile Schools.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$45,705

$13,185

$32,000

$30,800

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Pioneer Basketball Club Decision Matrix

75

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

15.    Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society Inc - Sumner Museum Joinery

Reference:

17/844423

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00057098

Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society Inc

Sumner Museum Joinery

$1,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This staff generated report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $1,000 to Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society Inc towards Sumner Museum Joinery.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$45,705

$12,185

$25,914

$24,914

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote - 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund Application - Sumner Redcliffs Historical Society Inc - Sumner Museum Joinery - Decision Matrix

79

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

16.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/737467

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Adopt the 2017-19 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Plan.

3.         Retrospectively approve the Board’s submission on the proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities ByLaw 2017.

4.         Advise of items the Board would like considered for inclusion in Newsline and in the Board’s newsletter.

5.         Advise of items the Board would like included in the Board report to Council.

 

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Community Board Plan update against outcomes

3.1.1   Based on the comments received from the Board on the 2017-19 Community Board Plan, staff present the final draft to the Board for sign off.

3.2       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

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

3.3       Board area Consultations/Engagement

Woolston Park playground renewal

28.07.17 – 21.08.17

Proposed parking restrictions: Rapaki Road & Vernon Terrace

07.08.17 – 23.08.17

Summit road proposed prohibited times on road restrictions

10.07.17 – 25.08.17

Bays Area skate project

13.11.17 – 13.12.17

 

3.4       Submission Opportunities

3.4.1   At its meeting held on 31 July 2017 the Board set up a working group that was requested to formulate a submission on the proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities ByLaw 2017.  The group met after which, on behalf of the Board, the Chairperson submitted a submission.  (Attachment A).

3.5       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline and Community Board Newsletter

3.5.1   The Board is asked to put forward items they would like considered for inclusion in Newsline and the Community Board Newsletter.

3.6       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.6.1   The Board is asked to consider items they would like included in the Board report to Council.

4.   Significant Community Issues

4.1       Community-led Revitalisation Plan for the Inner City East

4.1.1   A workshop on this is to be held on 14 August 2017.

5.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

5.1       Community Facilities

5.1.1   Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre will be officially opened on Saturday 19 August 2017 at 1.30pm.  The opening ceremony will be held in the main community hall on the mezzanine floor where members of the community and invited guests will commemorate the occasion. The Mayor will be the Guest of Honour and local resident, Peter Hansen will be the Master of the Ceremony.  Speeches will be given by Councillors Sara Templeton and Yani Johanson on behalf of the Board. There will be performances by local school children and light refreshments will be served. A small blessing ceremony will be held on Thursday 17 August prior to the opening. Invitations have been sent to elected members for this ceremony.

5.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

5.2.1   It’s Great to Live Here 2017 was successfully held on Friday 21 July at Eastgate Shopping Centre. Over 30 community groups and organisations from the Greater Linwood area came together to celebrate what’s great about living, working, playing and learning in Linwood, Woolston, Phillipstown and Bromley. The day was the first of the torrential rain storm but that did not deter families coming out to participate in the activities offered and interact with community groups on the last day of the winter school holidays.

5.2.2   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Mini-Funding Expo was held at the Greater Linwood Forum on Monday 7 August in partnership with White Elephant Trust who hosted the event. The event was opened out to the wider Community Board area and over 27 community groups and organisations attended the small event with five funders represented. The expo was to provide groups with an opportunity to hear directly from funders above community grants available and to support relationship-building between groups and funders.  As there was high interest in this event, other opportunities will be created to promote ongoing dialogue between funders and community groups.

5.3       Neighbourhood Week

5.3.1   Neighbourhood Week will be held 27 October to 5 November 2017 in the Linwood‑Central‑Heathcote wards.  Applications are able to be submitted online for the first time.  Applications were accepted from 24 July and close on 1 September 2017.  Neighbours are encouraged to host small get-togethers with the assistance of a Community Board approved subsidy towards costs of items such as picnic food. 

5.4       Upcoming Events

5.4.1   Central City Party in Cathedral Square and surrounding streets will be closed to traffic for a street party on Sunday 1 October from 9am to 5pm.  The event will promote organisation of events by neighbourhoods and will take place during The Breeze Walking Festival.

5.4.2   Meet in the Middle is being planned for Sunday 15 October from 10.30am to 3pm.  It is a feature walk of The Breeze Walking Festival and will celebrate and promote the partial opening of Te Ara Otakaro Avon trail - a transitional city to sea riverside trial from Barbadoes Street bridge to Pages Road bridge beside the Otakaro Avon River.

6.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

6.1       A funding workshop will be held with the Board on 16 August 2017.  The purpose of the workshop is to talk to the Board about the 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund and the applications received.

6.2       Total of unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $38,520.  Funding table is Attachment C.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Submission on Proposed Marine, River and Lake Facilities Bylaw 2017 - 4 August

84

b

Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report July 2017

86

c

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Funding 2017/18

87

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 August 2017

 

 

17.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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