Social and Community Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 2 August 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

28 July 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Citizen & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

Social and Community Development Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

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

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

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

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

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

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

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

 

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

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

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

·      Community facilities and assets

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

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

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

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Council delegates to the Social and Community Development Committee authority to:

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications up to a value of $150,000.

§  Approve extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

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

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

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

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the multicultural strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 

 


Social and Community Development Committee

02 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.......................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

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

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

STAFF REPORTS

B       6.       Housing First Initiative for Christchurch

Scott Gallacher, Deputy Chief Executive Housing, Ministry of Social Development will attend the meeting to discuss a Housing First Initiative for Christchurch.

B       7.       Briefing - Community Arts

Council's Community Arts Team will provide an overview of current work and activities.

B       8.       Future of Heritage Engagement Findings: An Update Briefing

An update from the Heritage Team in advance of the report to be presented to the Committee on 6 September 2017.  It will provide findings of the public consultation about a new direction for heritage. The briefing will:

·        summarise engagement undertaken and further engagement planned;

·        summarise what the community have identified as being of heritage value to them, the significance of heritage and the legacy they wish to leave future generations;

·        identify the issues and opportunities emerging from the engagement process; and

·        identify some potential ways to address these issues and opportunities. 

B       9.       Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report August 2017..................................... 13

A       10.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for the Former St Luke's Vicarage, 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch...................................................................................................... 15

A       11.     Proposed Names for New Park and New Legal Road in East Frame......................... 27

A       12.     Review of the Terms of Reference for the Social and Community Development Committee and Housing Taskforce............................................................................ 105

B       13.     Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2017.......................... 111

C       14.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 129  

 

 


Social and Community Development Committee

02 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 Social and Community Development Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 5 July 2017 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

 

Social and Community Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 5 July 2017

Time:                                    1pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown – arrived at 1.07pm

Councillor Tim Scandrett – departed at 1.50pm

 

 

30 June 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00011

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Clearwater, seconded by Councillor Livingstone that an apology for early departure from Councillor Tim Scandrett be accepted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00012

Committee Decision

That the minutes be confirmed of the Social and Community Development Committee meetings held on:

·     Wednesday, 31 May 2017 - Open and PX

·     Monday, 19 June 2017.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

Cr Keown arrived at 1.07pm.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

 

4.1       Martin Witt and Amanda Dodd of the Cancer Society, provided the Committee with a full evaluation of Smokefree Canterbury’s Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial.

The Committee thanked Martin and Amanda for their presentation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Briefing - Michael Campbell

 

Mr Campbell briefed the Committee about establishing a sister cities relationship with Dublin, Ireland, noting that no New Zealand city or town has that sister cities relationship, Christchurch could benefit from Dublin’s high level skills, young population and agricultural background.  He also briefed the Committee about making Christchurch an autistic friendly city, similar to that undertaken in Liverpool; and about relocating climate change scientists to Christchurch as the gateway to Antarctica.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00013

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

 

1.         Refers the matter of a Sister Cities relationship with Dublin, Ireland to the International Relations Working Group for further consideration.

 

2.         Asks for staff advice on the proposal to make Christchurch an autistic friendly city.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00014

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Refers the matter of the climate change scientists relocating to Christchurch to the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee.

      Note: The Committee suggested that the Innovation and Sustainable Development Committee may wish to involve Regenerate Christchurch.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

7.   Briefing - Social Equity Wellbeing Network

 

Sharon Torstonson provided the Committee with a general overview of the health and wellbeing of the non-profit sector and current issues.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00015

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Refers the matters raised in the SEWN presentation to the Community, Governance Support and Partnership Unit to follow up and report back to the Committee.

 

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                      Carried

 

8.   Briefing - Homelessness

 

A verbal update on people without homes and about the adoption of a “Housing First” approach was provided by Community, Governance Support and Partnership Unit staff.  Discussion followed the update.

 

Councillor Scandrett left the meeting at 1.50 pm.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00016

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee requests that staff:

 

1.         Undertake research in Christchurch to establish the number of people without homes, main attendant issues and baseline information.

 

2.         Work with people without homes, and a range of Government and non-government agencies, to develop and implement a Housing First proposal to take to the Ministry of Social Development.

 

3.         Meet with the Social and Community Development Committee in August 2017 to discuss progress and next steps.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

An adjournment was taken from 2.30 pm to 2.38 pm.

 

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

 

Committee Comment

The Committee agreed this report will lie on the table until the next meeting to allow the additional information to be added to the report.

 

 

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00017

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

11. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 129 Cambridge Terrace

 

Committee Comment

1.         Staff were asked to provide advice on prior funding or contractual arrangements received from Council in future reports. 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00018

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $24,552 for maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 129 Cambridge Terrace. 

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

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00019

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

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

Councillor Chen/Councillor Keown                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00020

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

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

Councillor Keown/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

14. Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 26 May 2017

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00021

Part B

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

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

15. Bishopdale Library and Community Centre Update

 

A verbal update was provided by Matt Cummins on the Bishopdale Library and Community Centre.  Kate Ogden, Libraries and Information Unit, attended the meeting also.

 

 

16. Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update June 2017

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00022

Part B

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

17. Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Members Update

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00023

Part B

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

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

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.55pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

   


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

9.        Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report August 2017

Reference:

17/696766

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Social and Community Development Committee on Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenant Consents approved during the period 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017 and to advise the Committee of any covenants removed under the delegated authority of the General Manager Strategy and Transformation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Social and Community Development Committee reporting requirements.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the summary nature of the report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

3.1       Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for                    the period 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Table 1 provides a list of grants and covenants approved between 1 January 2017 and 30 June 2017.

4.2       Uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund was reasonable in the first part of the financial year and this continued into 2017. The large grant approved for the Duncan’s Buildings allocated all of the years remaining funds and required a commitment from the next years funding as shown in the Table below.

4.3       Table 1 Heritage Incentive Grants approved by Committee and/or Council for the second part of the 2016/2017 financial year:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800

Approved grant to 63 Savills Road, Tiptree Cottage

$117,480

Approved grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere, Ngaio Marsh House

$39,889

Approved grant to 209 Tuam Street, the former Post & Telegraph Building

$55,931

Approved grant to 143-157 High Street, The Duncan’s Building

$362,675

Commitment from 2017/2018 funding year

$76,734

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$0

 

 

5.   Covenant consents

5.1       Delegated authority given to the General Manager Strategy and Transformation for the removal of covenants following the demolition of the building as a result of the earthquakes or for the undertaking of minor works has not been used in the last six months. There was one request for a covenant consent, at 53 Gloucester Street, which was recently approved by Committee.

6.   Grant Work Progress

6.1       It has been a very successful year for the Heritage Incentive Grants scheme with a number of significant projects getting underway and others approaching completion. Some grant funded projects have required extensions of time to allow for their completion, including 25 Armagh Street, 88 Chester Street East and the Shand’s project on Manchester Street. However, work is continuing on all of these projects and completion is expected within the extended timeframes granted by the Committee. Work is now fully underway on the Woods Mill project under the leadership of the new owner Mike King. This is a significant achievement and an important step for the project given the building’s previous neglect and the complexity and scale of the solutions required. It is the last industrial building of such quality and significance in the city. A media project organised by the owner is accompanying the works and Councillors will be kept up to date on key milestones and particularly the opening of the refurbished Mill building. Elsewhere in the city work is now underway on the repainting of the former Post & Telegraph Office at the junction of High Street and Tuam Street and work has also begun on the façade works for the Duncan’s Buildings.

6.2       In Lyttelton work is continuing on the refurbishment of the Harbour Board Building on Norwich Quay with the completion of the new upper storey to replace the one lost in the earthquakes. Work has been completed on a number of smaller heritage buildings, The Tin Palace in Lyttelton and 6 Godley Quay in Lyttelton and work is now underway on the dwelling at 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

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

Reference:

17/737987

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

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

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

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

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

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

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

5.3       The current owners of the building are Ester Vallero and Matt Reid.  In relation to the Operational Guidelines ‘Potential Conflict of Interest’ disclosure, the Committee should note there is no conflict of interest with this application.

5.4       The building suffered significant damage in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, resulting in it being unsafe to occupy. It has been vacant since this time. The chimneys were removed and the building braced and boarded up, but it has suffered a degree of vandalism since, including some fire damage. The damage to the foundations and structure of the building mean that it is now a very low percentage of new building standard and requires repair and strengthening to make it habitable again.

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

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

 

 

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

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

Option Description

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

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

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Preliminary & General

$51,206

Scaffolding

$39,325

Prepared building for relocation

$14,451

Relocation of building

$59,687

Strengthening works

$47,478

Roofing and rainwater goods

$4,000

Conservation & repair of external joinery and weatherboards

$49,925

Interior wall lining

$51,365

Skirting boards and architraves

$10,136

Removal of water tank

$5,776

Remove asbestos

$22,579

Exterior and interior wall repair & conservation

$150,468

Exterior verandahs

$11,950

Reinstate fireplaces

$2,352

Staircase and timber panelling - shellac

$11,000

Flooring

$11,783

Services

$14,530

Sprinkler system

$74,912

Professional fees/consents

$50,050

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$682,973

 

 

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

 

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

$204,892

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

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

·           Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch – Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha

·           The Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$351,554

 

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

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

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

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

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

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

7.   Option 2 – A higher level of funding

Option Description

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

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Proposed grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace, Christchurch

$40,920

Proposed grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Proposed grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$341,487

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$214,959

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

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

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

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

22

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

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

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

11.    Proposed Names for New Park and New Legal Road in East Frame

Reference:

17/627714

Contact:

Russel Wedge

Russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941-8270

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to consider and recommend to Council the proposed road name and the proposed park name in the East Frame development.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from a Working Group with representatives from Christchurch City Social and Community Development Committee, Ōtākaro Limited, Fletcher Living and Matapopore Charitable Trust who were to evaluate and recommend to Council potential names.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is 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 significance matrix

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve Rauora Park as the reserve name in the East Frame development consisting of five parcels of land between Armagh Street and Lichfield Street (Lots 207, 304, 404, 504, 606 on RMA62031953 Approved Resource Consent Plan dated 14/07/2016).

2.         Agree on the preferred name for the legal road to the west of Rauora Park between Armagh Street and Lichfield Street, a part of the East Frame Development (Lots 206, 303, 403, 503, 607 on RMA62031953 Approved Resource Consent Plan dated 14/07/2016).

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean,  tidy, safe and functional

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Park Name - Rauora

·     Option 2 - Park Name - Tūora

·     Option 1 – Legal Road – Liverpool Lane

·     Option 2 – Legal Road – Huanui Lane

4.3       Option Summary Park Name - Advantages and Disadvantages: Rauora

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The name Rauora reflects the community’s wellbeing and health, a place of gathering

·     The reserve has an official name that can be used to locate and promote the reserve

·     The reserve name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·     When the land has been vested with Council the reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park id and added to a maintenance contract.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some people may find the name difficult to pronounce

4.4       Option Summary Legal Road Name – Advantages and Disadvantages: Liverpool Lane

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The name Liverpool Lane provides a link to Christchurch’s history and a former urban landscape that may potentially be lost

·     The Lane will have an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the Lane

·     The Lane name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·     When the land has been vested with Council the Lane can be entered into SAP enabling it to be added to a maintenance contract.

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include

·    Some people may consider there should be a stronger connection with the proposed park name Rauora and would recommend Huanui to reinforce the intent of shared landscape and wellbeing.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background – East Frame Anchor Project

5.1       The East Frame Anchor Project – Pūtahi Whakaterāwhiti will be a new residential area in the heart of the city, built around the third largest park in Christchurch Central. The new central park extends from the Ōtākaro/Avon River corridor south to Hereford Street forming the eastern structure of the city grid. This new linear park will be flanked by medium density residential development on the eastern and western sides. Adjacent to the park on the western side, the new north-south Lane will provide vehicular access to future residents. The Lane will have a cycle and pedestrian lane parallel to the new central park and will provide connections to the Innovation Precinct and the Avon River corridor (refer Attachment A).

Working Group

5.2       A Working Group was formed to identify and recommend to Council the proposed names for the new park and new legal road in the East Frame. The Working Group comprised of stakeholders and relevant partners from Ōtākaro Limited, Fletcher Living, Christchurch City Council, and Matapopore Charitable Trust. An independent consultant from Boffa Miskell Limited was engaged in the process to facilitate the Working Group meetings and undertake research into the place histories of the East Frame. The final research report East Frame Legacies was compiled, which explores the historical context for place naming opportunities (refer Attachment B). The research report was a reference document for the Working Group to consider when determining relevant and appropriate names for the new park and laneway.

Park Name - Considerations

5.3       The park as a public space, is a social space that is open and accessible to everyone, at all times. The park is a place where people can come together to meet, to play, to exercise, to sit and relax, and places for self-expression. The East Frame park is in five separate parcels of land and could be developed as five separate parks but the Working Group considered the park should be considered as one entire park developed to become the central area of the residential areas bordering both sides of the park. The Working Group wanted the park to reflect the community well-being and strengthen the whole network of the East Frame development linking the eastern properties with the western and forming a community focal area, as a central park. The park parcels of land will be vested with the Council as Recreation Reserves under the Reserves Act 1977.

5.4       The key design objectives of the new park that relate to conceptualising names for the new park are:

·        To recognise the natural, cultural, and built heritage of Christchurch

·        To create a pedestrian and recreational landscape within the central core of the city with links to the Avon River and the Innovation Precinct, and

·        To integrate a Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri/Ngāi Tahu design narratives.

5.5       Many of the city’s central park names represent the English origins of the city and do not reflect the cultural significance of, and connections to, Christchurch Central for Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu. The creation of the new park provides an opportunity to reflect the shared history of the central city and Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu identity within the city’s landscape.

Legal Road - Lane Considerations

5.6       The new north-south road could be considered to be five separate roads. However, it is not common practice in Christchurch to have several names for one stretch of road, especially a road as short as this new north-south road. Christchurch has many roads with one name that are intersected by crossing streets. The Working Group discussed using the term ‘Lane’ instead of using ‘Road’ or ‘Street’ to describe the new legal road. The Working Group believe the term ‘Lane’ is more representative of the community feel that will be created with the residential properties bordering either side of the Lane and linear park. The use of Lane does not conflict with Council’s Policy Roads and Rights-of-Way-Naming. The Lane will be vested with the Council as legal road.

5.7       The creation of the new park extended over the legal street that was Liverpool Street, located between Hereford and Cashel Streets. This street was officially closed to allow for the construction of the new central park. While Liverpool Street’s name refers to a place in England and some may consider it has no link to Christchurch’s identity, although Liverpool Street formed part of the historic urban landscape of Christchurch Central since 1909.

5.8       The creation of this new Lane provides an opportunity to reflect the shared history of the central city and Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu identity in the central city landscape.

6.   Option 1 – Park Name - Rauora

Option Description

6.1       The proposed name of ‘Rauora’ for the East Frame park signifies ‘well-being’ in a wider, holistic sense.  Rau can mean ‘leaves’, ‘greenery’, ‘many’ and ‘gathering’.  Ora indicates health and wellbeing.  Combined they are ‘the revitalisation of body and soul’ in relation to all living things. Rauora is often used when referring to a community or group of people or plants.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage with the Community Board as the park is considered to be a local park and there are very few, if any residential properties adjoining the park.

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. Matapopore Charitable Trust were engaged to represent Ngāi Tahu on the Working Group and have actively participated in the discussions and decision making process.

6.5       Matapopore Charitable Trust is the organisation that has been established by Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, to weave these into the fabric of Anchor Projects and other projects associated with the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       There are no adjoining residential properties specifically affected by this option due to the East Frame is still being developed. The Working Group presented at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar on 18 April 2017 on their proposed scope of work.

6.7       The Working Group attended the 12 June 2017 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar to present the Working Group’s preferences for the two proposed park and Lane names.

6.8       The Community Board  informally voted on the options and selected the names recommended In particular they were supportive of the theme associated to the name options which was “well being” .

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 – There is a minor financial implications to provide a reserve sign that complies with the Parks Sign Guidelines.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no significant on-going maintenance costs associated with the parks sign

6.12    Funding source – The Parks Units Capex Budget for new structures on parks.

Legal Implications

6.13    There are no negative legal implications to the naming of the land. The naming of the reserve complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.14    There are minimal, if any, risks associated with the naming of the reserve as it complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - no known dependencies.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – the name can be implemented as soon as the minutes have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The name Rauora reflects the community’s wellbeing and a place of gathering and health

·   The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve

·   The reserve name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·   When the land has been vested with Council the reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park id and added to a maintenance contract.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some people may find the name difficult to pronounce

7.   Option 2 - Park Name - Tūora

Option Description

7.1       The proposed name of Tūora signifies the wellbeing of people and is associated with future aspirations for this area.  Tū means ‘to stand’.   Ora indicates health and wellbeing.  Tūora is to stand in a place of wellbeing’. Tūora is often used when referring to one person, individual, object.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage with the Community Board as the park is considered to be a local park and there are very few, if any residential properties adjoining the park.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. Matapopore Charitable Trust were engaged to represent Ngāi Tahu on the Working Group and have actively participated in the discussions and decision making process.

7.5       Matapopore Charitable Trust is the organisation that has been established by Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, to weave these into the fabric of Anchor Projects and other projects associated with the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       There are no adjoining residential properties specifically affected by this option due to the East Frame is still being developed. The Working Party presented at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar on 18 April 2017 on their proposed scope of work.

7.7       The Working Group attended the 12 June 2017 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar to present the Working Group’s preference for the two proposed park and laneway names.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – There is a minor financial implications to provide a sign that complies with the Parks Sign Guidelines.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no significant on-going maintenance costs associated with the parks sign

7.11    Funding source – The Parks Units Capex Budget for new structures on parks.

Legal Implications

7.12    There are no negative legal implications to the naming of the land. The naming of the reserve complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    There are minimal, if any, risks associated with the naming of the reserve as it complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - no known dependencies

7.15    Implementation timeframe - the name can be implemented as soon as the minutes have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve

·   The reserve name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·   When the land has been vested with Council the reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park id and added to a maintenance contract

·   This name may be easier to pronounce for some people

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Tūora is often used in the singular to refer to the wellbeing of one plant or individual and may not reflect the wellbeing of a community, as would Rauora

8.   Option 1 – Legal Road – Liverpool Lane

Option Description

8.1       The name Liverpool Lane is in recognition of Liverpool Street which formed part of the cultural English history of Christchurch central city.  Liverpool Street was decommissioned as part of the East Frame park construction and lies under the new park.  Liverpool Street was established in 1909 and was named after Liverpool, the city and metropolitan borough of Merseyside, England.  Reinstatement of this name for the new Lane reasserts connections to this past and the perception of Christchurch as ‘the most English of New Zealand Cities’.  (Te Ara – Encylcopedia of New Zealand, 2015.  Retrieved on 30th June 2017 https://teara.govt.nz/en/canterbury-region/page-13.)

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage with the Community Board as the area is considered to be a local road and there are no residential properties adjoining the road.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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. Matapopore Charitable Trust were engaged to represent Ngāi Tahu on the Working Group and have actively participated in the discussions and decision making process.

8.5       Matapopore Charitable Trust is the organisation that has been established by Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, to weave these into the fabric of Anchor Projects and other projects associated with the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Community Views and Preferences

8.6       There are no adjoining residential properties specifically affected by this option due to the East Frame is still being developed. The Working Party presented at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar on 18 April 2017 on their proposed scope of work.

8.7       The Working Group attended the 12 June 2017 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar to present the Working Group’s preference for the two proposed park and Lane names.

8.8       At the final Working Group’s meeting on 27 July 2017, the Group reconsidered their preferred order of preference for the Lane name. The outcome of the discussion was a split vote between Liverpool and Huanu for the order of preference. The decision was to keep with the original order of preference previously decided for this report and highlight the tied vote of the Working Group in this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation – There is a minor financial implications to provide a Lane sign in compliance with Council’s policy.

8.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no significant on-going maintenance costs associated with the Lane sign

8.12    Funding source – The Developer (Fletcher Living) funds new Lane signs in new developments.

Legal Implications

8.13    There are no negative legal implications to the naming of the legal road. The naming of the Lane complies with Council’s Policy on Roads and Rights of Way Naming 2 November 1993.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.14    There are minimal, if any, risks associated with the naming of the Lane as it complies with the Council’s Policy on Roads and Rights-of-Way Naming, 2 November 1993.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies  - no known dependencies

8.16    Implementation timeframe - the name can be implemented as soon as the minutes have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The name Liverpool Lane provides a link to Christchurch’s history and a former urban landscape that may potentially be lost

·   The Lane have an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the Lane

·   The Lane name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·   When the land has been vested with Council the Lane can be entered into SAP enabling it to be added to a maintenance contract.

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some people may consider there should be a stronger connection with the proposed park name Rauora and would recommend Huanui to reinforce the intent of shared landscape and wellbeing

9.   Option 2 – Legal Road – Huanui Lane

Option Description

9.1       The proposed name of Huanui in mana whenua local dialect means ‘pathway’. ‘Hua’ on its own can mean ‘fruit’, ‘flower’, ‘abundance’, as well as ‘asset’.  Huanui is considered here as ‘a pathway to good health, abundance, plentifulness and is consistent with the notion of ‘community wellbeing’ intended for this area.

 Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage with the Community Board as the area is considered to be a local road and there are no residential properties adjoining the road.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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. Matapopore Charitable Trust were engaged to represent Ngāi Tahu on the Working Group and have actively participated in the discussions and decision making process.

9.5       Matapopore Charitable Trust is the organisation that has been established by Ngāi Tūāhuriri / Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, to weave these into the fabric of Anchor Projects and other projects associated with the recovery of greater Christchurch.

Community Views and Preferences

9.6       There are no adjoining residential properties specifically affected by this option due to the East Frame is still being developed. The Working Group presented at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar on 18 April 2017 on their proposed scope of work.

9.7       The Working Group attended the 12 June 2017 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar to present the Working Group’s proposed names for the new park and new Lane.

9.8       At the final Working Group’s meeting on 27 July 2017, the Group reconsidered their preferred order of preference for the Lane name. The outcome of the discussion was a split vote between Liverpool and Huanu for the order of preference. The decision was to keep with the original order of preference previously decided for this report and highlight the tied vote of the Working Group in this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.10    Cost of Implementation – There is a minor financial implications to provide a Lane sign in compliance with Council’s policy.

9.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no significant on-going maintenance costs associated with the Lane sign

9.12    Funding source – The Developer (Fletcher Living) funds new Lane signs in new developments.

Legal Implications

9.13    There are no negative legal implications to the naming of the Lane. The naming of the Lane complies with Council’s Policy on Roads and Rights-of-Way Naming, 2 November 1993.

Risks and Mitigations   

9.14    There are minimal, if any, risks associated with the naming of the Lane as it complies with the Council’s Policy on Roads and Rights-of-Way Naming, 2 November 1993.

Implementation

9.15    Implementation dependencies  - no known dependencies

9.16    Implementation timeframe - the name can be implemented as soon as the minutes have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The use of Huanui in conjunction with Rauora can reinforce the intent of shared landscape and community wellbeing

·   The Lane will have an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the Lane

·   The Lane name can be promoted with any promotional material associated with the development of the East Frame

·   When the land has been vested with Council the Lane can be entered into SAP enabling it to be added to a maintenance contract.

9.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some people may consider there is a loss of the historic urban landscape of Christchurch’s English origins.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

RMA/2015/3536 East Frame Plan Highlighted New Reserve and New Legal Road

37

b

RMA/2015/3536 East Frame Legacies - Exploring Historical Context for Place Naming Opportunities 10 April 2017

38

 

 

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

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

12.    Review of the Terms of Reference for the Social and Community Development Committee and Housing Taskforce

Reference:

17/689539

Contact:

Megan Pearce

Megan.pearce@ccc.govt.nz

941 8140

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee (the Committee) to recommend that the Council amend the Committee’s name and terms of reference. It is also recommended that the Housing Taskforce be disestablished and replaced with the Housing Subcommittee.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in an effort to raise the profile of housing related matters and provide a clear line of reporting on such matters.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Re-name the Social and Community Development Committee to become the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

2.         Adopt the amended terms of reference attached to this report for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

3.         Disestablish the Housing Taskforce.

4.         Note that these decisions may have an impact on the terms of reference for other committees of Council, specifically around housing issues, consequently staff will report back to Council should those terms of reference need amending.

That the Social and Community Development Committee, subject to the Council adopting the above recommendations:

5.         Establish the Housing Subcommittee reporting to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

6.         Confirm the membership of the Housing Subcommittee be Councillors Livingstone (Chair), Buck, Clearwater, Galloway and Johanson.

7.         Adopt the terms of reference attached to this report for the Housing Subcommittee.

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The current committee structure has been operating under adopted terms of reference since February 2017. This has provided adequate time to identify inconsistencies and anomalies to be addressed within the terms of reference and committee structure. For example, the terms of reference for the Housing Taskforce are broader than those for the Committee it reports to.

3.2       Housing has also been identified as a priority for the Council and in order to adequately address these issues within the committee structure, it is recommended the status of the Housing Taskforce be changed to that of a formal subcommittee which must then work within the formalities of the Local Government Act, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, and Standing Orders.

 

4.   Context/Background

Committee structure

4.1       At the Council meeting of 15 December 2016 the Council adopted a committee structure for the 2016-2019 triennium. The intention of the committee structure was to support the oversight and monitoring of the Council’s strategic directions.  

4.2       The Housing Taskforce was established reporting to the Social and Community Development Committee. Membership of the Taskforce was Councillor Livingstone as Chair and Councillors Buck and Johanson.

4.3       At that meeting, the Council resolved (CNCL/2016/00492) that staff work with the Chairs of each committee to develop terms of reference for those committees and report back to the Council for adoption.

4.4       The terms of reference were subsequently considered and adopted by the Council at a meeting on the 9th February 2017 (CNCL/2017/00030).

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

4.5       The committees and subordinate structures have been operating under their current terms of reference since February 2017. As could be expected, there have been some amendments to terms of reference during this period as the committees develop their work programmes.  

4.6       It has been identified that the current terms of reference for the Housing Taskforce are much broader than those for the Committee, its direct line of report. In order to remedy this anomaly, and to raise the profile of all housing issues within the committee structure, it is proposed to change the name of the Committee to that of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee and amend the corresponding terms of reference to reflect this intent.

4.7       In order to ensure the many aspects associated with “housing” are captured within the realm of the Committee, it is intended to keep the terms of reference very broad and high level. It is intended that the Committee will oversee all housing matters including, but not limited to, policy, asset management and strategic relationships. 

 

Housing Subcommittee

4.8       In order to facilitate more robust and transparent decision making, it is recommended that the Housing Taskforce be disestablished by the Council and that the Committee establish the more formal Housing Subcommittee, reporting to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.

4.9       Currently, the Housing Taskforce is deemed to be a subordinate decision making body and thus not required to adhere to the formalities of the LGA, LGOIMA or Standing Orders. Whilst this results in an agile meeting process, the Council may wish to align this meeting with the principles of s. 14 LGA 2002 and conduct its business in an open, transparent, and democratically accountable manner. This would mean future meetings would operate in accordance with the governance principles of the LGA and LGOIMA and the meetings would have formal agendas, minutes and be open to the public (subject to any specific report being considered in public excluded).

4.10    Due to the nature of the subject matter to be dealt with, the Subcommittee may wish to invite non-members with specific knowledge or expertise to attend particular meetings. These attendees would be able to participate in the discussion and advise Subcommittee members on the relevant agenda items. These attendees would not have voting rights or be able to partake in debate.

4.11    Having a more formal process around the Housing Subcommittee would raise the profile of housing issues as the Council has identified that access to adequate and affordable housing is fundamental for healthy communities to thrive.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Social, Community development and Housing Committee terms of reference

108

b

Housing Subcommittee terms of reference

110

 

 

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

Megan Pearce - Team Leader Hearings and Council Support

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

13.    Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July 2016 - 30 June 2017

Reference:

17/728130

Contact:

Robert Orchard

Robert.orchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8344

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to provide the Social and Community Development Committee with a status report on social housing matters for the past financial year and provide information about the future 2017-2019 repair and renewal programme.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The information 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.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information provided.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The 2016-2017 year has been significant for the Council in terms of its Social Housing activities.

4.2       The Social Housing portfolio was predominantly managed by the Christchurch City Council up until 4 October 2016.  At this time, and under a Deed of Lease approved by the Council on 25 August 2016, the tenancy management services of the majority of the Social Housing portfolio transferred to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT).

4.3       As a result of this planned change, the transition of tenancy management services to OCHT has been a major focus of the Housing Team during the 2016/17 year along with asset management activities associated with Social Housing Earthquake (EQ) Repair and Renewal Programme (the programme) and the ongoing reactive maintenance programme.

4.4       During the 2016-2017 year the EQ Repair and Renewal Programme completed:

·    133 open unit and 24 closed unit repairs

·    The build of sixteen new units

·    Demolition on eleven units and pre-demolition works on a further 58 units

4.5       A number of Government legislative and policy changes (e.g. Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) have been enacted during this period relating to smoke alarms, insulation, and methamphetamine testing/remediation standards.  This has driven the need for Council to complete a number of assessment activities and plan for management of additional efforts in the future.

4.6       Pursuant to the Housing Accord agreement (and subsequent Council resolutions), 2016/2017 saw the first two tranches of assets transferred to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust on the 10 February 2017 and 21 June 2017 respectively.  Ongoing planning and preparation of further transfers has been occurring.

4.7       The Council also purchased the Linwood Village temporary accommodation units from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) on 1 May 2017, and these units were subsequently transferred to OCHT on 21 June 2017.

 

5.   Background

5.1       Council has been providing low-cost accommodation to low-income residents of Christchurch for almost 80 years, being a pioneer of social housing in New Zealand. The first units were built in 1938 – 16 pensioner units in Sydenham.  Today it owns 2478 units, located across the city and on Banks Peninsula, which makes it one of New Zealand’s largest owners of social housing.

5.2       While there are no legislative requirements for providing social housing, Council’s role in Social Housing provision enables better outcomes for our communities as tabled below.

Community Outcome

Justification

Strong Communities

Strong sense of community

Having access to housing is a major key to a sense of community as it enables people to take part in the community and access services and facilities.

Active participation in civic life

Not having a home inhibits participation in civic life. Not having a home address can make it difficult to take part in or use basic services in the community such as enrolling to vote, getting a bank account or even a library card.

Safe and healthy communities

Having a home is the first step to keeping a person safe and healthy. Providing homes to those in need helps keep both them and the public feeling safe.

Liveable City

Sufficient supply of, and access to, a range of housing

By providing social housing, Council contributes to the supply of housing for those in need and those who would otherwise find it hard to access housing.

Healthy Environment

Sustainable use of resources

Council’s social housing is built, maintained and renewed in a way which promotes sustainability and energy efficiency.

Prosperous Economy

An inclusive, equitable economy with broad-based prosperity for all

Housing is a key area through which social and economic well-being is influenced. Adequate housing is strongly linked to economic performance.

Table 1            Community Outcomes enabled by Social Housing

5.3       Council’s broader direction for housing, including social housing, is set out in the Housing Policy 2016, the amended Christchurch Housing Accord 2017 and the Council’s Social Housing Strategy 2007.

5.4       Such policy contains several goals that guide the ongoing management and delivery of Council’s social housing portfolio. 


 

 

5.4.1      Pertinent goals from the Housing Policy 2016 include: 

·    Retaining affordable housing - Develop a range of creative, collaborative and innovative ways to ensure the co-ordinated long term promotion, provision and retention of both social and affordable housing.

·    Housing quality - Improve the standards, regulations and monitoring on housing design and quality to achieve healthier housing for households irrespective of their income.

 

5.4.2      The Accord’s ongoing goal is to support a well-functioning, private sector-led housing market in Christchurch, including sufficient supply at the lower end of the market to ensure adequate access to housing for those with lower incomes.  Initiatives relevant to Council’s social housing portfolio include:

·     Establish a housing entity or entities capable of meeting the requirements of being registered as a Community Housing Provider, to redevelop Council owned social housing assets and to develop social and/or affordable housing to better meet future housing needs of the city (complete).

·     Crown to fund the Council to purchase 42 units at Linwood Village and undertake future remediation. Council to use units for earthquake-related temporary social and affordable housing and ultimately transfer units to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust for relocation and reuse (complete).

 

5.4.3      The current amended Housing Accord 2017 reflects current circumstances.  The original Accord, ratified in 2014, set targets related to additional social housing units across the City – not just those provided by Council.  Specifically it contained a target to add 700 net additional social housing units to the total housing stock by December 2016.   This target is no longer in the amended Accord because at December 2016, it had been successfully achieved with 854 units completed (i.e. 150 additional social housing units into Christchurch across all providers).

5.4.4      The Social Housing Strategy 2007 recognises that the Council has a leadership role in the provision and facilitation of social housing in Christchurch and contains the seven goals provided in Table 2 below. Key objectives related to Council’s own housing portfolio are highlighted in italics.

 

Goal Name

Goals and Objectives

Partnership

a)     Developing and sustaining partnerships and relationships which contribute to social housing provision in Christchurch, fostering opportunities for tenant well-being and community integration.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To continue to develop increased understanding of the roles and responsibilities of other housing services providers.

ii)     Foster sustainable tenancies and tenant well-being by linking tenants with community support services.

iii)    Further develop partnerships around appropriate housing for people with disabilities and emergency housing.

iv)    Enter into funding partnerships with other providers, including central government, NGOs and private sector.

v)     Identify and address gaps and trends in housing by working with key stakeholders.

Managing Demand

a)     Identifying and managing the demand for social housing in Christchurch.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To forecast the likely demand and geographic locations for social housing in the Christchurch area for the next 20 years.

ii)     Increase understanding of where housing needs are likely to occur.

iii)    Council will maintain, upgrade and where appropriate increase its supply of social housing.

iv)    Collaboratively develop policies and plans to manage housing demand in Christchurch.

 

Location

a)     Locate provision near community hubs and social services, such as community centres, shopping centres, transport links and health services where possible so as to foster community connections and tenancy stability.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To locate social housing developments, where practical, close to community hubs.

ii)     Support the location of emergency and transitional housing near community services.

iii)    Seek to provide social housing where the need is recognised.

 

Brokerage and Advocacy

a)     Council acts as a broker and advocate for the availability of social housing.

b)    The Strategy recognises that the demand for social housing exceeds availability and identifies the key objectives as:

i)      Advocating to government, charitable trusts, non-profit organisations and private sector for the provision of social housing.

ii)     Develop processes to measure and quantify the demand for social housing.

iii)    Investigate the benefits of developing, implementing and maintaining a central register of social housing agencies in Christchurch.

 

Compatibility and Integration

a)     Giving priority to the compatibility and safety of Council tenants both within housing complexes and the community.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To continue to develop and implement processes which assess tenant needs and provide healthy living environments for tenants.

ii)     Continue to identify and facilitate links to support services to enhance tenant well-being.

iii)    Make available housing placements appropriate to need.

iv)    Work with others to promote shared responsibility for harmonious community relationships.

 

Facilitation and Resourcing

a)     Council promotes and facilitates the provision of social housing that is recognised as a high quality service which is socially and environmentally sustainable.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To encourage developers to provide affordable and/or social housing in residential and mixed use developments.

ii)     Promote good urban design of social housing, including universal design principles that maximise physical accessibility, mobility and independence.

iii)    Support best practice for warm, dry and safe housing.

iv)    Continue to ensure appropriate resources are available to manage complex tenancy needs and partnerships.

v)     Be the leader in quality social housing service provision.

 

Service Sustainability

a)     Council operates a social housing service that is both financially sustainable for Council and financially affordable for tenants.

b)    Key objectives are:

i)      To set rentals that provide for the sustainable operation of, and investment in, Council’s social housing portfolio.

ii)     Rents are set at affordable levels for tenants.

iii)    The Council’s social housing operation is rates neutral.

 

Table 2            Goals from the Social Housing Strategy

5.5       Council’s current Social Housing portfolio currently consists of 2,478 units.

5.6       OCHT currently manage the majority of these tenancies within the portfolio. As of 1 July 2017, OCHT are also responsible for the minor (reactive) maintenance in relation to all complexes under that lease agreement.

5.7       The balance of the portfolio are either owner occupied (9 units) or managed by one of 4 other community housing providers (32 units) detailed in 6.1 below.

5.8       As at 30 June 2016, there were 2257 open/tenantable units (91%) in the Social Housing Portfolio. Units are closed for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to pending redevelopment, demolition, EQ repair, methamphetamine contamination remediation, asbestos or other significant asset related issues. Open/tenantable units fluctuate on a monthly basis.

 

6.   Looking Back – July 2016 to June 2017

Lease Arrangements

6.1       Prior to October 2016, Council managed the majority of its social housing assets directly.  A small number of units were leased to other agencies:

·   The Beckenham Housing Trust (Lancewood Courts) – supported social housing

·   YWCA – emergency and transitional accommodation for single women and women with children

·   Home and Family – residential parenting programme

·   Anglican Care – McGregors Road (Ka Wahine) – transitional housing for women

 

6.2       In September 2016, Council resolved to enter into a lease for the remaining properties and since 4 October 2016 management transferred to OCHT.

6.3       There are currently 9 owner occupied units in the Council Housing portfolio (8 at Aldwins Courts and 1 at Perth Street (HP Smith)).

6.4       The primary focus of the Social Housing team in the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 has been to facilitate the transition of management responsibilities to OCHT.  Initially, the focus was on transferring tenancy management services, while more recently focus has been on the transfer of minor maintenance.

6.4.1      Minor maintenance refers to repairs and scheduled activities such as gutter cleaning, quick fix repairs and issues.  Council is still responsible for major maintenance and for renewals of these units.

6.4.2      Council continued to provide support to the OCHT over the transfer through provision of call centre support on a contracted basis.  Since June 2016 this responsibility has also passed to the Trust.

Internal Transitional Matters

6.5       The changes to the delivery model for Social Housing has required internal reorganisation as well as external transition, resulting in changes to personnel and roles within Council.

6.6       The Social Housing team is now primarily responsible for the asset management of the social housing portfolio. With the exception of tenancy management, Council continues to deliver its other housing roles – predominately strategic housing initiatives through other units and teams.

6.7       The internal change has gone smoothly, and there is no evidence of anything other than minor impacts on service delivery.

Transfer of assets

6.8       Capitalisation of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust through the transfer of assets has commenced to fulfil the Council’s obligations under the Housing Accord. This programme aligns with Council’s resolutions of 9 July 2015 (headed ‘Capitalisation of Housing Entity as required by Housing Accord’) and 8 September 2016 (headed ‘Transfer of $50m Housing Fund Assets – Process’).

6.9       Council have since completed the first asset transfers with Louisson Courts and Charles Street vacant land properties being officially transferred to OCHT on 10 February 2017. The second tranche of properties, comprising properties in the social housing red-zone compensation package, were transferred to OCHT on 21 June 2017.

6.10    On 1 May 2017 the Council purchased the Canterbury Earthquake Temporary Accommodation Service (CETAS) units housed on Linwood Park and known as Linwood Village. On 22 June 2017, as part of the $50million transfer agreement, these units were transferred to OCHT.

Repair Programme

6.11    The Social Housing Repair and Renewal Programme is project managed under the Social Housing Team in the Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services Unit.

6.12    Since 2013, 624 open unit and 99 closed unit repairs have been undertaken either as part of the EQ Repair and Renewal Programme or as part of the Vacant Unit Evaluation (VUE) process.  A further 96 units were repaired prior to the commencement of this programme. This brings the total overall number of closed or open units either repaired or under repair to 819 as at 30 June 2017.

6.13    In addition, completed demolition totals to date are 261 units demolished (inclusive of including 113 units within in the CERA Red Zone) with further demolitions in progress. Sixteen new units have been built.

6.14    Tenant consultation and engagement continues to be a key component of this works programme.

6.14.1    Consultation is held prior to any significant complex-wide work programme being undertaken and tenants are given the opportunity to provide feedback. For example, where a full external re-paint is to take place, tenants are given the opportunity to indicate preference of colour. Tenants are communicated with individually in regards to any work planned for their individual respective units and regularly throughout the works programme.

6.14.2    As deemed necessary tenants are supported with moving to temporary accommodation during significant internal repairs, with the opportunity to either move to Council provided temporary accommodation or make their own arrangements. Generally Council incur the cost of temporary accommodation and associated moving costs and these are accounted for under the total cost of the project.

6.14.3    To date, works under the repair and renewal programme have required a large majority of tenants to relocate. This requires a co-ordinated approach to ensure the smooth running of the repair and renewal programme. Housing staff work closely with OCHT, or one of the four other community housing providers, to ensure this work happens without undue effect on the tenant or the project.

6.15    During the 2016/2017 year the following repair and renewal programme activity occurred (refer Attachment 1):

6.15.1    A total of 133 open/tenantable and 24 closed unit repairs have been completed across eight complexes. This includes Avonheath Courts 6 units, Whakahoa Village 3 units, Veronica Place 20 units, Glue Place 2 units, Airedale Courts 92 units, Marwick Place 26 units, GF Allan 7 units, and Home and Family 1 unit.

6.15.2    Sixteen new units were built, opened, and tenanted with 8 at Innes Courts and 8 at Osborne Street respectively.

6.15.3    Demolition was completed on 11 units at Avonheath Courts and pre-demolition strip out works have commenced on 30 units at Cresselly Place and 28 units at Reg Stillwell Place.

Legislation

6.16    The Housing Team have also been responsible for ensuring that the Council attains its legal obligations as a landlord under the RTA with new provisions having come into effect during 2016/17. These include:

Smoke Alarms

6.17    Section 138A of the RTA stipulates that from 1 July 2016 landlords will need to have working smoke alarms installed in all their residential rental homes.  New regulations require that if smoke alarms are being installed or replaced after this date they must be long-life photoelectric smoke alarms, must have a battery life of at least eight years, must meet the required product standards, or be a hard-wired smoke alarm system.

6.18    Landlords are responsible for ensuring that smoke alarms are working at the start of each tenancy and tenants are responsible for ensuring that the alarm is working and batteries are replaced during that tenancy.

6.19    In 2013, the (then) Housing Unit completed a project for the installation of 10 year smoke alarms to all units across the social housing portfolio. In addition, 197 units and two residents’ lounges (generally where it is a multi-story block of units), have hard wired smoke alarms which are inspected on an annual cycle.

Insulation

6.20    Under changes to Section 138B of the RTA Social Housing must be insulated by 1 July 2016 and all other rental homes by July 2019 (where tenants pay an income related rent). There are some exemptions where the design of the building inhibits installation or access for installation.

6.21    Landlords are required to provide a statement on the tenancy agreement for any new tenancy commencing 1 July 2016 about the location, type and condition of insulation in the rental home.

6.22    In October 2015, Christchurch City Council signed an agreement with Community Energy Action (CEA) to assess and insulate up to 731 properties, with an initial focus on 475 standard properties within the portfolio. Other properties which do not come under the ‘standard’ category generally are those properties which require building remediation or are under a planned programme of work where insulation would be completed as part of that programme.

6.23    As at 16 December 2016, CEA reported that 1358 properties had been assessed, and of those 248 have been insulated (though our Repair and Renewal Programme), and certificates of insulation issued to 418 of those properties. In addition, 464 units were assessed as meeting required standards, with a further 418 units assessed as unable to be insulated (i.e. currently exempt). 

6.24    Housing will have completed insulation assessment of 100% of the portfolio by December 2017 which will enable Council to better understand the insulation status of the remainder of the portfolio and best determine strategies for insulation for these units by July 2019.

6.25    All new units built under the Councils Housing Team are fully insulated.

Methamphetamine

6.26    With a growing incidence of methamphetamine use in New Zealand,  and in order to protect both tenants and landlords from the effects of both use and production, policy proposals have looked at introducing a specific right of entry for landlords (or their agents) and allowing for shorter tenancy termination notices where contamination is detected.

6.27    In November 2016, MBIE released the Regulatory impact statement: Protection of tenants and landlords from the effects of methamphetamine contamination and on 29 June 2017 Standards New Zealand released the Methamphetamine Testing and Remediation Standard (NZS 8510). This standard supersedes the previous Ministry of Health Guidelines (2010).

6.28    The Council Housing Team have been testing for methamphetamine use as part of its Repair and Renewal and VUE work since mid-2016; and if identified, consideration is made on a case-by-case basis to determine the economic viability of remediating the property.

Other Housing Activities

6.29    During the 2016 /17 year Council also undertook significant planning work to reconfirm the financial sustainability of the portfolio under the new delivery model building on and refining the previous Deliotte’s modelling.  A draft Asset Management Plan containing this modelling is currently being prepared and will be presented to the Committee and Council through the Long Term Plan process.

6.30    During the year, Council and OCHT staff managed the discovery of asbestos fibres in the living spaces of units at the Sandilands social housing units in Linwood discovered as part of the pre-planning work for earthquake repairs. On a precautionary basis tenants were moved out while testing was undertaken. Testing later revealed the presence of asbestos in the ceiling spaces of all units, with evidence of asbestos in the living spaces of three of these.

6.31    Following relocating tenants to more suitable temporary accommodation, remediation activities have since occurred.  When appropriate to do so, and with suitable safety measures, tenants have been returned to their units.  Three tenants remain out of their units and these tenants are currently located at the Linwood Village. An update will be provided to the Committee at the 2 August meeting following a planning close out session on 31 July.

 

7.   Looking Forward – July 2016 to June 2018

7.1       Key tasks for the forthcoming year include finalising the remaining transition matters to the OCHT, ongoing delivery of the repair programme, increasing focus on renewals, sustainability initiatives, completing the $50 million capitalisation of the Trust, and planning for the future.

7.2       The remaining transition matters include ensuring minor maintenance processes work seamlessly, refinement of performance monitoring arrangements, and review of procedures to reflect new responsibilities.

7.3       Programming for repair and renewal works to be completed in the 2017/18 year include:

7.3.1      Completion of ongoing works

7.3.2      Repairs to 184 units across eight complexes

7.3.3      Services and residents lounge works in three complexes

7.3.4      Planning and procurement processes for the renewal of six units including the replacement of one fire damaged unit

7.3.5      The approved demolition of 23 units.

 

7.4       The 2017-2019 Repair and Renewal Programme includes:

7.4.1      Work in progress as at 30 June 2016 includes six new unit builds, including the replacement of one fire damaged unit at Bryndwr Courts and five units at Bruce Terrace in Akaroa. This will increase the number of units at Bruce Terrace from three to five.

7.4.2      Repairs will continue on 246 units across 10 complexes including Tommy Taylor, Clent Lane, Mary McLean, Fred Price, Guise Lane, Bridgewater Courts, Maurice Carter Courts, Huggins Place, McGregors Road, and YMCA, with 16 closed units expected to return to service.

7.4.3      New works planned for 2017/18 include repairs to 184 open/tenantable units and 16 closed units across eight complexes. Works to services and/or residents lounges will take place in a further three complexes. The demolition of two units at Fred Price Courts, 18 at Airedale (Block A) and the post construction demolition of the three units at Bruce Terrace will also occur.

7.4.4      A further 15 complexes have been approved for repair in the 2018/19 year, although this is subject to approval under the Long Term Plan (LTP).

7.5       Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 contain the detailed 2017/18 programme of works.

7.6       The major sustainability initiative underway relates to insulation.  Insulation assessments will continue with the aim of assessing 100% of the portfolio by December 2017.  Where repairs and renewals works are planned, insulation is installed as part of these works.  For the remaining units detailed planning will occur over the second half of 2017, allowing programmes to be developed and implemented by July 2019.

7.7       Capitalisation of the Trust is ongoing.  The next planned tranche of properties to be transferred to the Trust will shortly come before Council.

7.8       Planning activities primarily relate to planning for the next iteration of the Long Term Plan.  This process is likely to reveal a number of issues for discussion.  Primary amongst these are growth, financial sustainability of the portfolio and funding for other housing matters.  These matters go beyond the scope of this status update, however the Long Term Plan process will allow the community to comment on these matters.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment 1 Social Housing Repair and Renewal Programme 2016-2017

122

b

Attachment 2 2017-19 Programme Memo - Approved

123

c

Attachment 3 2017-2019 Social Housing Programme

127

 

 

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

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Approved By

Robert Orchard - Manager Social Housing

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

14.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Social and Community Development Committee

02 August 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

15

Robert McDougall Gallery - Future Use

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

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

The estimated costs associated with the strengthening and repair works, as well as the funding requirements from the Museum are commecially sensitive at this stage. Until such time as contracts are entered into, releasing the information is likely to undermine Council and the Museum's negotiation positions.

Once contracts are entered into by Council and once the Museum has confirmed that the information is no longer confidential.