Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 6 November 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

1 November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Marama Crescent, Mount Pleasant - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.............. 15

C       8.       Clydesdale Street, Woolston - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions......................... 23

C       9.       Sumner Health Centre on Nayland Street - Proposed Accessible Parking............... 31

C       10.     190 Worcester Street, Christchurch - removal of accessible parking space............. 39

C       11.     107 Garlands Road, Hillsborough - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions................... 47

C       12.     Coastal Pathway at Scott Park - Proposed Give Way Control.................................. 55

C       13.     122 Richardson Terrace - Proposed Road Name......................................................... 63

C       14.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Youth Development Fund - Syvaana Amai-Hansen................................................................................................... 67

C       15.     Application to 2017-18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Avebury House............................................................................................................... 71

C       16.     Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Heathcote Valley School............................................................................................... 75

C       17.     Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Addington Neighbourhood Association ..................................................................... 79

C       18.     Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust..................................................... 83

C       19.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 87

B       20.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 108 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 18 October 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 18 October 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

 

 

18 October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00170

Apologies were accepted from Sara Templeton and Alexandra Davids for absence.

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                     Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00171

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 2 October 2017 be confirmed subject to the following amendment:

Clause 15 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Part B

Resolution 3 to read:

a.      Note that the Board is committed to the December 2019 opening of the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic facility as had been communicated to the community through the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.    

Part A

b.     Notes that comprehensive discussions and consultation have occurred on a possible site for the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic Facility during the development of the Council’s Aquatic Facilities Strategy, and recommends to the Council that it delegates the site selection for the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic Facility to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and request staff to prepare a report on the site selection promptly to ensure that the aquatic facility will be opened in December 2019.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

7.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 18 October 2017.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00172

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 18 October 2017.

2.         Request staff advice on how the Redcliffs Residents’ Association will be included in discussions regarding:

a.       Which buildings are remaining on the current Redcliffs School site and any new ones planned to be built on that site.

b.       Which trees and landscaping features  are to remain on the current Redcliffs School site.

c.        The layout and composition on new sports fields.

3.         Request staff advice on the funding budget (including unallocated funding that was to be used on the pavilion on the current Redcliffs Park) for the new Redcliffs Park.  Whether unallocated funding can be reallocated to provide upgraded community facilities on the new Redcliffs Park.

Jake McLellan/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                Carried

 

8.   Ribbonwood Place, Hillsborough - Proposed Weekday P120 Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00173 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes between the hours of 8am and 5pm on the south east side of Ribbonwood Place commencing at a point 30 metres north west of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 33 metres.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

9.   McCormacks Bay Road, Mount Pleasant - Proposed Saturday Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00174 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays on the south west side of McCormacks Bay Road commencing from a point 14m north west of its intersection with Aratoro Place and extending in a north westerly direction for 101 metres.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

10. 99 Main Road, Redcliffs - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

 

Board Comment:

As part of its consideration the Board discussed and agreed that the period the restrictions needed to address concerns of local businesses.  The Board noted all day restrictions were not required.

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes at any time on the north east side of Main Road commencing at a point 26 metres south east of its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for 19 metres.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00175

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes daily between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm on the north east side of Main Road commencing at a point 26 metres south east of its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for 19 metres.

Darrell Latham/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

11. Ferrymead Park Car Park

 

Board Comment:

The Board discussed the proposed location the overflow car park and noted that there is an opportunity for the carpark to be sited so that it provides parking for both the heritage park and for future use of the Tamaki Village site.

 

Staff Recommendation 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve construction of a gravel car park within the budget available this financial year (2017/18).

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00176

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Decided to lay the report on the table to allow time for the Board to hold a workshop to consider the Ferrymead Development Plan, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Ferrymead Trust and the future use of the Tamaki Village site as a potential dog park.

2.         Request that staff investigate the relocation of the proposed overflow car park to a site closer to the former Tamaki Village Site.

Yani Johanson/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                         Carried

Note: Deon Swiggs requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded

 

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 10:41 am. Deon Swiggs returned to the meeting at 10:44 am.

 

12. Settlers Reserve - Proposed Easement

 

Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) and Section 48(2) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to drain sewage over the parts of Settlers Reserve shown on the submitted plan as Attachment A, subject to:

a.         No objections being received and upheld in response to public notification.

·     Note, that if submissions in opposition are received in response to the public notice, a Council hearings panel is to be convened, in accordance with Part D – Subpart 4 of the Councils delegations register, to hear and determine submissions and objections in relation to this proposal.

b.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation or his or her delegate.

c.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

2.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to the Christchurch City Council for the right to convey wastewater as outlined in the staff report.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00177

Part C

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

1.         With respect to the existing sewer main, approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to drain sewage subject to the conditions in 2.b and c. below.

2.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) and Section 48(2) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to drain sewage over the parts of Settlers Reserve shown on the submitted plan as Attachment A, subject to:

a.         No objections being received and upheld in response to public notification.

·     Note, that if submissions in opposition are received in response to the public notice, a Council hearings panel is to be convened, in accordance with Part D – Subpart 4 of the Councils delegations register, to hear and determine submissions and objections in relation to this proposal.

b.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation or her delegate.

c.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

3.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to the Christchurch City Council for the right to convey wastewater as outlined in the staff report.

4.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

Deon Swiggs/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

13. Application to the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Aranui Eagles

 

Board Comment:

The Board discussed whether this application should be funded by the Board or from the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund.

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Aranui Eagles Rugby League Club towards the Pacific Series.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00178

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Aranui Eagles Rugby League Club towards the Pacific Series.

2.       Request staff advice on the eligibility of this application for metropolitan funding and seeks reimbursement of the grant from the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund if the application satisfies the criteria.

Jake McLellan/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                          Carried

14. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    Homelessness – The Board were advised of recent challenges the city Homeless are facing including illnesses, death and mental health.

 

14.1   Sumner Temporary Skate Ramp

 

The Board discussed the unresolved issues relating to skateboarders in the Nayland Street, Sumner carpark and the ongoing impact on local motel owners and visitors.

 

The Board requested a progress update from staff on the instalment of the Sumner temporary skate ramp at the corner of Nayland and Wakefield Streets.

 

14.2   Land Drainage Recovery Programme - Heathcote River

 

The Board discussed the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in particularly the recent community meetings in relation to the Heathcote River.

 

The Board requested an update on the Land Drainage Recovery Programme – Heathcote River after the recent community meetings.  The Board also request the next steps in the project including timeframes and the decision-making processes.

 

14.3   River Bank Maintenance

 

The Board discussed riverbank maintenance along Avonside Drive between Fitzgerald Avenue and Barbadoes Street.

 

The Board requested that a letter be sent to the Mayor advising concern on the maintenance of the Avon River banks within the residential red zone managed by Land Information New Zealand.

 

14.4   Signage on Council Land and Reserves

 

The Board discussed instances of advertising by businesses on Council land and public reserves, in particular signs that keep reappearing after they have been removed.

 

The Board requested staff advice on the follow up process on signage that continues to reappear on Council Land and Reserves after the signage has been removed.

 

14.5   590 Moorhouse Avenue - Resource Consent Hearing

 

The Board discussed the upcoming hearing on the proposed Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Billboard Signage at the corner of Moorhouse Avenue and Wilsons Road.  The Board noted the increase in visual pollution including LED signage.  Some residents have been in contact with members in relation to this application.

 

The Board requested staff to find out the timetable for the hearing and whether submitters will be informed as to when they will be required to be present.

 

15. Supplementary Report

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00179

That the Supplementary Report be received and considered at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting on Wednesday, 18 October 2017.

Open Items

16.       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

16. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

3.         Consider items for inclusion in the Board report to the Council.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00180

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.                      Receive the Area Update.

2.         Request that spring mowing be covered in Newsline so that residents understand why                              grass mowing is not currently being done in some cases.

3.         Approve Neighbourhood Week funding of $125.00 for Margaret Jenkin.

4.         Note that Board members are organising three neighbourhood week events: one in the      Central City, one for the homeless and one in Thackeray Reserve.

5.         Note that in the future the Board is included in discussions and recommendations for naming of Council facilities, including features within Council facilities within the Community Board area.

             6.         Recognise the great success of the Breeze Walking Festival’s sixth annual event.

7.         Request that staff update the Board on progress for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote inaugural Edible Gardens Awards.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 12.00pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6th DAY OF November 2017.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

7.        Marama Crescent, Mount Pleasant - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1207051

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions along both sides of a section of Marama Crescent in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Marama Crescent commencing at a point 150 metres southwest of its intersection with the southern kerb line of St. Andrew’s Hill Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Marama Crescent commencing at a point 143 metres southwest of its intersection with the southern kerb line of St. Andrew’s Hill Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 – Install no stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·  Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Ensure that vehicles do not park in an area that forces other traffic to drive dangerously over the centre line

·   Improves visibility for the residents at nos.7,9, 10, 11 and 12 Marama Crescent using their driveways

·   Provides improved forward visibility for drivers in general on this section of Marama Crescent

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in a loss of parking by the equivalent of four spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident raised concerns that vehicles parked on Marama Crescent at a bend location resulted in other drivers needing to drive over the notional centre line at a dangerous location

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to remove this risk and improve safety at this location.

5.3       Council staff inspected the site and agree with the issues raised. The site has a winding and steep alignment; forward visibility is very limited. Attachment C consists of two site photographs which show one parked vehicle which requires passing vehicles to drive over the centre line. Marama Crescent has dish channels on both sides meaning that vehicles park offset from the kerb line, which worsens the problem.

5.4       The crash history for this location has been checked and no crashes were recorded at this location, however staff consider that there is a justified safety concern.

5.5       Staff also observed that this section of road has few markings or is badly worn. Consequently the proposal includes enhancing the markings to provide a clear, solid centre line and edge markings, to guide drivers to approach safely.

5.6       The proposed restrictions would result in a loss of 4 parking spaces. However, all of the nearby properties have garages and driveways. There are also informal parking opportunities opposite no.11, off the edge of road which are already used. The improved edge lines will provide clarity for drivers to understand that the safe limit of parking space available on this side.

5.7       The installation of the no stopping restrictions and improved markings will reduce the risk of vehicles overrunning the centre line and improve road safety at this location.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on both sides of part of Marama Crescent in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 6-16 Marama Crescent.

6.5       No letters of objection or request for amendment were received. One letter of support was received from the resident at no.10.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Ensure that vehicles do not park in an area that forces other traffic to drive dangerously over the centre line

·   Improves visibility for the residents at nos.7,9, 10, 11 and 12 Marama Crescent using their driveways

·   Provides improved forward visibility for drivers in general on this section of Marama Crescent

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for No Stopping Restrictions to support the safe movement of commercial vehicles accessing the local business.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains four unrestricted parking spaces

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety concerns of the local community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

10 Marama Cr location plan

20

b

10 Marama Cr site photos

21

c

10 Marama Cr site plan

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

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

8.        Clydesdale Street, Woolston - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1207017

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions along both sides of a section of Clydesdale Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Clydesdale Street commencing at a point 70 metres east of the eastern kerbline of Hargood Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of  22 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Clydesdale Street commencing at a point 50 metres south east of the eastern kerbline of Hargood Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of  89 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Shetland Street commencing at the southern kerbline of Clydesdale Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Shetland Street commencing at the southern kerbline of Clydesdale Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

Option 1 – Option 1 – Install no stopping restrictions (preferred option)

Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the forward sight lines for vehicles driving on Clydesdale Street

·   Improves sight lines from some property driveways

·   Reduces the likelihood of drivers overrunning centrelines and increasing safety risk

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in loss of parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident who regularly drives on Clydesdale Street raised concerns that vehicles parked on the street resulted in the forward sight lines being blocked and some vehicles driving over the centre line, each contributing to safety concerns.

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to maintain clear forward sight lines.

5.3       Staff visited the site and noted that this street has a particularly winding alignment sometimes resulting in cars not parking parallel to the kerb, which worsens the issue.  It was apparent that there are challenges to the sight lines, partly due to the alignment and made worse by parked vehicles. This also results in safety risks to drivers leaving residential accesses.

5.4       The crash history for this location has been checked which indicated that there were no recorded crashes on Clydesdale Street over the last five years. However, staff agree with the safety concern  and consider that vehicles parked on street presents risks to clear sight lines and that there is sufficient spare parking capacity for the introduction of restrictions not to inconvenience local residents.

5.5       The restrictions are adjacent to property numbers 54, 59 and part of Cutler Park.   Number 59 has off-street parking space and 54 requested restrictions outside their property, in the interests of safety. For Cutler Park there are substantial other unrestricted lengths of street frontage available on Clydesdale Street and Shetland Street, where the road alignment is straight.

5.6       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will improve the sight lines for drivers using Clydesdale Street as well as the driveways onto this street and reduce the risk of a crash occurring.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the south side of part of Clydesdale Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 63-40 Clydesdale Street, 90 Hargood Street and 3 Shetland Street.  The original site plan included a section of restriction outside no.60 extending to the section adjacent to the triangular shaped land area between nos 54 and 60.

6.5       One letter of objection was received from the owner of no.60. Consequently, the proposal was amended to exclude the section outside that property.

6.6       Another letter of support was received from no.54. The owner requested an amendment to extend the restriction to halfway across their frontage, to improve the sight lines from the driveway at their property. Consequently, the site plan was amended to add the section requested.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $300 to install road markings.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.16    Implementation timeframe – approximately 4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the forward sight lines for vehicles driving on Clydesdale Street

·   Improves sight lines from some property driveways

·   Reduces the likelihood of drivers overrunning centrelines and increasing their safety risk

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for No Stopping Restrictions to improve sight lines at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains more on-street parking

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety concerns of the local community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Clydesdale St location plan

28

b

Clydesdale St NSR site plan

29

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

9.        Sumner Health Centre on Nayland Street - Proposed Accessible Parking

Reference:

17/1206907

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the conversion of an existing on-street space to an accessible parking space on Nayland Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a doctor at the Sumner Health Centre.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure that the Health Centre can be accessed by visitors with a mobility issue within a reasonable distance of the entrance.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person's parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport - Road User Rule 2004 on the north east side of Nayland Street, commencing at a point 58 metres north west of the western kerbline of Wakefield Avenue and extending in an north westerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.3 Improve customer perception of the ease of use of Council parking facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

Option 1 – Install an accessible parking space on Nayland Street (preferred option)

Option 2 -  Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a convenient location for drivers with a mobility impairment to access local health services

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the loss of a parking space for the public in general

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A request was formally received by the Community board for an accessible parking at this location. A case was made which indicated that the Sumner Health Centre has several regular patients that have mobility difficulties and often have to compete for parking space on Nayland Street and experience pain and discomfort due to the distance between the available parking space and the Health Centre.

5.2       Staff have investigated the local street environment and agree with the concern. With the introduction of the new off-street community car park nearby, there is an increased supply of parking spaces nearby, which includes accessible spaces, though these are a substantial distance from the health centre entrance.

5.3       There are evidently parking opportunities on Nayland Street, though are often located some distance from the health centre and may be far away from dropped kerbs which present difficulties for wheelchair users or drivers using mobility scooters.

5.4       The installation of an accessible parking space will ensure that visitors that require particular mobility needs are able to access the Health Centre with a reasonable level of convenience and travel distance.  The provision of dropped kerbs at this space will also provide the assurance of wheelchair access close to the designated space.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install accessible parking space on Nayland Street (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide accessible parking space on Nayland Street adjacent to Sumner Health Centre in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The Health Centre is situated at 35 Nayland Street. The neighbouring property on its south eastern side is the new Sumner Library. The new off-street car park which services the library and the Sumner community is located at the other side at no.33. Staff have observed that there is consistently spare parking capacity on Nayland Street.

6.5       Consequently, it is considered that the loss of the parking space for other drivers would have a negligible effect and staff considered that consultation was unnecessary.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $500 to install road markings, dropped kerbs and provide sign and post.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a convenient location for drivers with a mobility impairment to access local health services

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the loss of a parking space for the public in general

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for No Stopping Restrictions to support the safe movement of commercial vehicles accessing the local business.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not meet the needs of visitors to the facility requiring wheelchair access.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Nayland St accessible sp site plan

36

b

Nayland St location plan

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

10.    190 Worcester Street, Christchurch - removal of accessible parking space

Reference:

17/1210810

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to revoke the accessible parking space located adjacent to 190 Worcester Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in further to a site inspection by staff.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person's parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport - Road User Rule 2004 on the southern side of Worcester Street, commencing at a point 75 metres east of its intersection with the eastern kerb line of Latimer Square and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of seven metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Remove accessible parking space on Worcester Street (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides more efficient use of road space due to the lack of the original requested accessible parking demand

·     Is consistent with the adjacent unrestricted on street parking

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Staff have visited this section of Worcester Street on several occasions and noticed that it is rarely used. An investigation was subsequently made concerning the original request for the space, which was implemented in 2014. 

5.2       The space was requested by the ‘Senior Net Mac Inc’ organisation, who relocated to this address as a result of the earthquakes. Staff contacted the individual who made the original request who indicated their subsequent relocated elsewhere in 2016 and confirmed that the accessible space is no longer required. 

5.3       The existing property at 190 Worcester Street is currently vacant though is occasionally used by the Canterbury Women’s Society.   Since on-site parking is available at that address, it is expected to be provided within that property.  Neighbouring properties consist of private apartments, which also include dedicated on-site parking.

5.4       In terms of the existing parking arrangements on-street, this section of Worcester Street (between Latimer Square and Barbadoes Street) consists of unrestricted parking spaces on both sides.

5.5       Staff therefore consider that the accessible space is no longer required and that the street space could be better utilised for general parking purposes, which is consistent with the remainder of this section of Worcester Street.


 

6.   Option 1 – Revoke the existing accessible parking space (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Revoke the existing accessible parking space located near 190 Worcester Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Consultation was limited to the organisation that originally requested the space, who confirmed that this was no longer required.

6.5       Adjacent properties include on-site parking within their property and would therefore be expected to provide any accessible parking on-site.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $200 to remove road markings and remove two signs and posts.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides more efficient use of road space due to the lack of the original accessible parking demand

·   Is consistent with the adjacent unrestricted on street parking

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the accessible parking space adjacent to 190 Worcester Street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This original applicant has confirmed that the facility is no longer required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

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

7.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies – not applicable.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Is potentially available for a driver with mobility requirements

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is no evident demand for the accessible space, so is a wasteful use of council asset

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

190 Worcester St site plan

44

b

190 Worcester St location plan

45

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

11.    107 Garlands Road, Hillsborough - Proposed P60 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/1219347

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions of a section of Garlands Road  in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to sixty minutes between Monday and Friday on the south side of Garlands Road commencing at a point 31m west of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P60 parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Removes inappropriate all day parking adjacent to residential properties

·     Provides opportunities for visitor parking to retirement properties

·     Provides an increased likelihood of opportunity for the resident at 200 Opawa Road to reverse safely into their property

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes two unrestricted parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The resident at no. 200 Opawa Road approached staff concerning difficulties accessing their property. This address is situated only 30 m from the busy intersection of Opawa Road and Garlands Road. The resident does not have turning facilities off-site, so must either reverse in or out onto Opawa Road.  The road turning area is also constrained due to a refuge island.  Attachment C consists of site photographs which show the local street environment.

5.2       The frequent presence of parked vehicles outside no 107 Garlands Road means that the manoeuvre can be especially challenging and result in a risk of a crash with other traffic. Some approaching vehicles travelling straight from the east are able to notice the turning vehicle, though some are approaching at speed or are turning from Opawa Road and lack the necessary forward visibility.

5.3       The area of interest consists of two unrestricted on-street parking spaces. It is evident from site visits and a meeting with the resident that the spaces are usually occupied by employees who work at local businesses off Opawa Road.

5.4       Initially, no stopping restrictions were considered as the adjacent properties all have their own garage and driveways for parking purposes. However, the addresses at 107 A-E are retirement properties and residents stated that their visitors are not permitted (by contract agreement) to use their parking spaces.

5.5       Staff spoke with local residents at that location, who sympathised with the adjacent resident’s turning issue, though indicated that were also inconvenienced by the all-day parking by employees. They would require the spaces to be at least available for visitor use potentially at all times of day.

5.6       Consequently, the proposal was set at a sixty minute restriction. Staff consider that this would enable the local resident at 200 Opawa Road to have increased opportunities to position their vehicle as described earlier, yet still retain a short stay opportunity for visitors to nearby residents.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P60 parking restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the south side of part of Ferry Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 107 - 116 Garlands Road, 200 – 202 Opawa Road and all residents of Mary Mclean Place.

6.5       No letters of objection or request for amendment were received.  The resident at 200 Opawa Road who initiated the original request commented that while a no stopping restriction was preferred, that she understood the P60 compromise to assist other residents and fully supported the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $300 to install road markings, two signs and one post.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Removes inappropriate all day parking adjacent to residential properties

·   Provides opportunities for visitor parking to retirement properties

·   Provides an increased likelihood of opportunity for the resident at 200 Opawa Road to reverse safely into their property

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes two unrestricted parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for parking restrictions to support the safe movement of turning vehicles and provide short stay parking opportunities.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains all day parking for general use

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety concerns of the local resident and request for short stay parking

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

107 Garlands loc plan

52

b

107 Garlands P60 site plan

53

c

107 Garlands Road site photos

54

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

12     Coastal Pathway at Scott Park - Proposed Give Way Control

Reference:

17/1241697

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a Give Way control on the Coastal Pathway at its intersection with the approaches to and from Scott Park, as shown in Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated following a customer service request and subsequent staff investigations.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

1.    That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve the installation of a Give Way Control against the Coastal Pathway at its intersection with the approaches to and from Scott Park.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Approve Give Way Control  (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves road safety as it clearly indicates the best place for cyclists to yield for the purpose of giving way.

4.3.2   There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Coastal Pathway project is a 6.5km long route which begins at Ferrymead Bridge, continuing along the coastal edge to Scarborough beach in Sumner. Once fully completed it is anticipated that there will be an approximate tripling of current use for cycling and walking.

5.2       This report relates to a section of the pathway that has recently been completed known as the Mount Pleasant Causeway, which was completed in early 2016.

5.3       Following its opening a post construction safety audit was undertaken, which in section 3.1.3 highlighted a location close to Scott Park where there is a break in the path, due to a vehicle access route which connects with the car park for Scott Park. A copy of the relevant extract from the audit is shown in Attachment C.

5.4       The safety auditors and staff agree that it is appropriate that cyclists give way to vehicles accessing the car park, since most of the pathway is an uninterrupted route and this location would otherwise present a hazard affecting cyclists and motor vehicles. This is especially hazardous as vehicles approach by turning left or right and are focussed on manoeuvring or a safe gap in traffic.

5.5       The safety auditors classified the crash risk frequency as ‘common’ and its likely severity as being that ‘death or serious injury is likely’.  Consequently the introduction of give way control is regarded as highly important to introduce as soon as possible.

5.6       For cyclists, road markings alone could be regarded as ambiguous and appropriate signage and the give way triangle would inform approaching cyclists, in good time, to slow down and assess the traffic conditions before proceeding.

5.7       In summary, the introduction of give way control will provide clarity of the intersection priorities and reduce the risk of this uncertainty for approaching cyclists, reducing the risk of a crash.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install Give Way Control (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the installation of a Give Way Control on the Coastal Pathway at its intersection with the approaches to and from Scott Park.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The community has not been consulted on the proposed Give Way control as there are no specific impacts on property owners. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - $500 for Give Way control and road markings.

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

6.5.3   Funding source – Coastal Pathway budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.7       The installation of any sign and markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       None identified.

Implementation

6.9       Implementation dependencies - Implementation of this option is dependent on the Community Board approving it.

6.10    Implementation timeframe - Implementation depends on contractor's workload but anticipated to be completed within one month of Community Board approval.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the delineation of the intersection with give way markings and a continuity line.

·   Improves road safety as it clearly indicates the best place for cyclists to yield for the purpose of giving way.

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing (leave intersection uncontrolled)

Option Description

7.1       Retain the uncontrolled road marking layout at the Coastal Pathway intersection near the access to Scott Park.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the safety audit request for providing give way control.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0. 

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable. 

Legal Implications

7.9       Not Applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the Give Way control is not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing no control to remain in place after potential traffic safety issues have been recognised.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Implementation of this option is dependent on the Community Board approving it.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Implementation depends on contractor's workload but should be completed within one month of the Community Board approving it.

Option Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages have been recognised

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not resolve an identified crash risk which is considered significant

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal pathway GWC site plan

60

b

Coastal pathway GWC location plan

61

c

Safety audit extract and recommendation

62

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

13.    122 Richardson Terrace - Proposed Road Name

Reference:

17/1218483

Contact:

Paul Lowe

paul.lowe@ccc.govt.nz

941 6481

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the proposed right-of-way name for one local subdivision.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from a naming request from the subdivision developer.

1.3       This report relates to the subdivision at 122 Richardson Terrace, Woolston.

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 number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to approve the following right-of-way name:

1.         122 Richardson Terrace (RMA/2013/1238)

·    Growers Lane

 

4.   Background

4.1       Introduction

4.1.1   The road naming request has been submitted by the developer of the subdivision at 122 Richardson Terrace (RMA/2013/1238).

4.1.2   The recommended right-of-way names have been checked against existing road names in Christchurch and bordering districts, for duplication, alternative spellings, or other similarities in spelling or pronunciation to avoid the potential for confusion. The recommended name is considered sufficiently different to existing road names.

4.1.3   The recommended right-of-way names have been checked against the Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy dated 2 November 1993. The recommended name is considered to be consistent with this Policy.

4.1.4   The recommended right-of-way names and types have been checked against Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and urban addressing. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this Standard.

4.1.5   Under the Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy the names considered must be requested by the developer. There is not an ability to consider alternative names without first checking whether there are any duplications or similarities with other road and right-of-way names.

4.1.6   Consultation has been undertaken with Land Information New Zealand who have raised no concerns with the proposed road names.

4.1.7   The requests have been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which is summarised below.

4.2       122 Richardson Terrace

4.2.1   Road names have been requested by Calibre Consulting Ltd for one right-of- way name at 122 Richardson Terrace in Woolston.

4.2.2   This area is located on a site that was previously owned by David and Irene Hawkes who owned the land from 1971 until recently. They ran the company Growers Trading Company Ltd in which the land was used mainly for growing tomatoes in glasshouses.  The proposed names tie in with the former use (growing tomatoes) and also the name of the company that did this.

4.2.3   The names in order of preference, are:

·     Growers Lane

·     Glasshouse Lane

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

RMA/2013/1238 - Plan - 122 Richardson Terrace

65

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Laura Braddick - Planning Technician

Paul Lowe - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

Andy Christofferson - Team Leader Planning

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

14.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Youth Development Fund - Syvaana Amai-Hansen

Reference:

17/1250094

Contact:

Bruce Coleman

Bruce.Coleman@ccc.govt.nz

941 6604

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider one application received for the Board's 2017/18 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $5,600 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Syvaana Amai-Hansen.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Syvaana Amai-Hansen towards travel to the International Youth Leadership Conference in Prague.

 

 

3.   Applicant 1 – Syvaana Amai-Hansen

3.1       Syvaana Rose Amai-Hansen has been invited to travel to Europe with Crimson Education on global leadership delegation The trip will include attending the week long International Youth Leadership Conference in Prague, visiting United Nations agencies and the Red Cross in Geneva and visiting universities and other places in London.

3.2       Syvaana is a 20 year old young Maori woman currently in her third year of study at University of Canterbury studying political science and sociology.  She would like to take on leadership roles in the community, complete a master’s degree in political science and eventually work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or the United Nations.  She has a wide involvement in the community including volunteering with Help with Homeless

3.3       Crimson Education is a private consultancy founded in New Zealand in 2003 to assist tertiary students to be placed in their preferred university, develop their leadership, assist in career mentoring and tutoring

3.4       Syvaana has references and support from her political science lecturer Dr Stephen Hardman

3.5       Attendance at the International Youth Leadership conference is particularly useful in providing Syvaana with skills, information and experience that she will be able to use in her future work and community life

3.6       Syvaana has raised the following funds towards the trip:

·    College of Arts; $1500

·    University of Canterbury International Relations Office: $1500

·    Give a Little page: $1400 as at October 13 2017

·    Other fundraising has been organised e.g. a Bake Sale and Quiz Night 

3.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Syvaana:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Travel & Expenses

$8,880

 

 

Total

$8,880

 

3.8       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to 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

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

15.    Application to 2017-18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Avebury House

Reference:

17/1189910

Contact:

Bruce Coleman

bruce.Coleman@ccc.govt.nz

941 6604

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

57247

Avebury House

Spring Gala

$1000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Avebury House.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant from the Discretionary Response Fund 2017/18of $1000 to Avebury House towards the Spring Gala.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$209,824

$23,385

$203,824

$202,824

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix - Avebury House

73

 

 

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 Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

16.    Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Heathcote Valley School

Reference:

17/1210927

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.Saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

57050

Heathcote Valley School

Sunshade Sails for Pool

$5,699

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Heathcote Valley School.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Grant $2,000 to Heathcote Valley School towards sunshade sails for the pool.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$209,824

$23,385

$203,824

$203,824

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix - Heathcote Valley School

77

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

17.    Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Addington Neighbourhood Association

Reference:

17/1202713

Contact:

Carly Waddleton

Carly.waddleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 5120

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

57281

Addington Neighbourhood Association

The History of Addington Book

$2000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Addington Neighbourhood Association.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund of $2000 to Addington Neighbourhood Association towards The History of Addington Book.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$209,824

$23,385

$203,824

$201,824

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix - Addington Neighbourhood Association

81

 

 

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

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

18.    Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust

Reference:

17/1220389

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00057241

Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust

A Container for a Healthy Life

$4,400

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This staff generated report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $4,100 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust towards A Container For a Healthy Life.

 

 

3.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$255,959

$29,785

$226,174

$222,074

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Decision Matrix - Phillipstown Community Hub

85

b

Phillipstown Community Hub Container Project- Concept Designs

86

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

19.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/737568

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Recommend to the Council that the proposed Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility be designed to best practice accessibility standards by:

a.         Ensuring barrier free auditing and reporting are conducted at all key stages of the project; concept development, design and construction

b.         Audits are done by independent accessibility specialists

c.         Audits include consultation with disabled people and their organisations to provide a user perspective.

3.         Requests staff to report on the suitability of 8 Martindales Road as a site for a Community Shed in Heathcote.

4.         Recommend that the Council instruct staff to prepare a report for the Regulation and Consents Committee investigating the introduction of an alcohol ban in the Linwood Village and Doris Lusk Reserve.

5.         That the Inaugural Edible Gardens Awards be held in Autumn 2019 and that the allocated funding for the awards be returned to 2017/18.  The Board note that staff will commence preparations from July 2018.

6.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

7.         Consider items for inclusion in the Board report to the Council.

 

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Community Board Plan update against outcomes

3.1.1   At the time of writing this report there was nothing to report.

3.2       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.2.1   Griffiths Avenue – Street Renewal Project – at the Board’s 16 August 2017 meeting the Board requested that staff investigate planting trees in the wider spaces where Griffiths Avenue intersects with Nicolas Drive be investigated in consultation with the residents.  Staff have advised:

·   The Project had progressed to detailed design.

·   It is not possible to put one on the eastern owing to overhead power wires however some existing native shrub planting will be extended into the proposed berm. The property in front of the proposed tree is owned by the Council (social housing), so there is no concern in planting the tree.  Staff will ensure that the tree is placed so it won't be dropping leaves in the yard or blocking any sunlight or views into the park.

3.2.2   590 Moorhouse Avenue – Resource Consent Hearing – at the Board’s 18 October 2017 meeting the Board requested staff to find out the timetable for the hearing and whether submitters will be informed as to when they will be required to be present  Staff have advised:

The hearing for this is scheduled for 2 November, starting at 9am.  Submitters will probably be required from about 10am, but that depends on how long the applicant takes to set out their case. They should probably be there at 9am. There is no set timetable.

3.2.3   Board Project Updates – at the Board’s 2 October 2017 meeting the Board requested staff to list on each Area Report progress on specific Board Projects and Action Requests.  The following are actions the Board:

Project/Action

Comment

Update

Former Tamaki Village Site

The Board request advice on the progress of making the area into a dog park.

At the Board’s 18 October 2017 meeting the Board resolved:

1.    Decided to lay the report on the table to allow time for the Board to hold a workshop to consider the Ferrymead Development Plan, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Ferrymead Trust and the future use of the Tamaki Village site as a potential dog park.

2.    Request that staff investigate the relocation of the proposed overflow car park to a site closer to the former Tamaki Village Site.

 

 

After the above Board request has been fulfilled a report will be presented to the Board.

Bromley/Woolston Air Quality

The Board request information on the collaboration of Environment Canterbury and the Council to monitor air quality in Bromley and Woolston

At the time of writing this report there was nothing to report.

Linwood Village Master Plan

The Board requested staff advice on when the Board will be approving the revised Linwood Village Masterplan.

Staff Advice on this matter is attached.

Ferry Road (Woolston) Masterplan

The Board request staff advice on when the Board will be approving the revised Masterplan

Staff Advice on this matter is attached.

Sumner Master Plan

The Board requests that staff provide an update on this.

Staff Advice on this matter is attached.

Radley Park Landscape Plan

The Board request staff advice on when the Board will receive the landscape plan that incorporates green space, Roimata Food Commons, the cycleways and the dog exercising area.

At the time of writing this report there was nothing to report.

Dog Park in Central City

The Board request an update on the request for Fletchers Living to provide a site for a dog park, and that other sites be explored for a Central City dog park.

The Board wrote to Fletcher Living and Otakoro Limited on 12 June to formally request the installation of a dog park within the East Frame.  A letter of reply has been received from Otakaro Limited and is attached to this report.

Greening the East

The Board request staff advice on when the Board will receive the planting plans for the Greening the East Board Project as communicated during the 2017/18 Annual Plan process.

The Acting Parks Manager is arranging a time to meet with the Board in November 2017 to discuss this and other requests that the Board have forwarded to the Parks Unit and preparing for the upcoming Long Term Plan.

Heathcote River Flooding

The Board request staff advice on the progress of the key actions from the outcomes of the Heathcote River Flooding.

At the time of writing this report there was nothing to report.

Letter to Educationists

The Board requested an update on the progress of the Council, through the Mayor, of the acknowledgment of the outstanding work of Canterbury educationists during the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquakes.

The Mayor made a media release on 27 October (ahead of World Teachers Day on 29 October) commending the commitment of Christchurch teachers in the post-earthquake environment.

North Avon Road from North Parade to River Road

The Board requested staff advice on traffic calming on the section of North Avon Road from North Parade to River Road as residents and Avebury House users have highlighted a speeding issue with drivers going to the red zone sections of River Road.

At the time of writing this report there was nothing to report.

 

3.2.4   Inaugural Edible Gardens Awards – at the Board’s 18 October meeting the Board requested an update the Board on progress for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote inaugural Edible Gardens Awards. 

·   The preparation and resourcing for the inaugural Awards will take more lead in time than first anticipated.  Another constraint is to engage an organisation to independently judge and facilitate some of the components of the competition.

·   It is recommended that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Edible Garden Awards be postponed until autumn 2019.

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

3.3.1   The Board continues to receive strategic, technical and procedural advice mainly through an ongoing programme of Board seminars held at the conclusion of the Board’s twice monthly ordinary meetings.

3.4       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.4.1   The following consultations are open to the community within the Community Board Area:

Scarborough Park Playground Renewal

16 October 2017 – 13 November 2017

Proposed $10 million grant for Christchurch Cathedral

12 October – 15 November 2017.

Bays Area skate project (upcoming)

13 November 2017 to 13 December 2017

 

3.5       Submission Opportunities

3.5.1   There are no submission opportunities at the time of writing this report.

3.6       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.6.1   Later in the year, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson will informally meet with the Mayor and Councillors to discuss the proposed contents of the Draft Long Term Plan.

3.7       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

3.7.1   There is nothing to report at the time of writing this report.

3.8       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.8.1   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in Newsline.

3.9       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.9.1   Members are invited to suggest significant matters from the meeting to be raised by the Chair at the next Council meeting (Community Board reports) on Thursday 9 November.

4.   Key Local Projects (KLPs) and Strengthening Communities Funded Projects

4.1       Roimata Food Commons – Staff met with four members of the Roimata Food Commons on 13 October 2017 to collaborate on this project. It was the purpose of the meeting for the Roimata Food Commons group to present their vision and their short, medium and long term goals for Radley Park.

4.2       At the Board’s 20 September 2017 meeting the following Strengthening Communities Funding Applications were referred to the Community Reliance Partnership Fund: (Attachment B)

4.2.1   Avebury House Trust for Community Development 2018 and Heritage regeneration (staff recommendation of $35,000);

4.2.2   Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust for the Phillipstown Community Hub (staff recommendation of $27,000);

4.2.3   Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo - Waltham Community Cottage for The Cottage Project (staff recommendation of $47,500);

4.2.4   Otautahi Creative Spaces Trust for Neighbourhood Creation Stations: Phillipstown Hub and Library; (staff recommendation of $10,000); and

4.2.5   Sydenham Quarter –Promote Sydenham Project (staff recommendation is a decline).

5.   Significant Community Issues

Ferrymead Heritage Park

5.1       Status

5.1.1   Ferrymead Heritage Park Limited made a presentation to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board in June 2017.  They outlined their plans for developing the visitor experience, increasing venue hire and social enterprise opportunities, collaborating with key organisations and experimenting with different kinds of events for different demographics.  In July 2017 a number of City Councillors and Community Board members visited the park, took part in a mock wedding and heard a presentation from staff about future social enterprise opportunities that were being explored.

5.1.2   Since then, the Park has continued to innovate in the events it holds, in its promotions and planning for future directions.  Some of the highlights of the last three months include:

·    Toddler Thursday will now be run twice a year, in the first and last terms.  Last time the event was held it attracted 340 adults and 320 pre-schoolers.  The next one is on 2 November.

·    Blast in the Past is a new event aimed at the 50 plus age group, the first one to be held on 30 November.

·    Dogs Day Out, held in collaboration with the Christchurch City Council, as part of The Breeze Walking Festival, attracted 320 people and 185 dogs and was very successful in demonstrating both the need and the feasibility of a dog park being established in the area.

The experiment with reduced admission fees has proved a great success in attracting more people to use the Park. For instance, school holiday attendance in October 2017 was almost double the attendance in October 2016.  There has also been a big increase in the use of family passes resulting in a three-fold increase in the number of families attending the Park.

5.1.3   In the medium term Ferrymead Park Limited is working towards becoming a home for traditional craft skills.  This will involve providing a place for practitioners of traditional crafts to practice their craft, demonstrate their skills to the public, offer items for sale and provide workshops and the like to the public.  To achieve this, the feasibility of converting some of the buildings with passive museum like displays into active work and shop spaces is being investigated.  

5.1.4   Ferrymead Park Limited is becoming more involved in community collaborations and partnerships.  For example, initial discussions have been held with Council’s Heritage Team to explore how the Park might become more actively involved with partnering with the Council on mutual heritage projects or priorities. For example this might include exploring the ways “intangible heritage” might be preserved, promoted and displayed and the development of heritage trails. 

5.2       Action

5.2.1   Ferrymead Park Limited staff and Board members are working with staff from Partnership Approvals, Building Consenting Unit at the Christchurch City Council to investigate what is required to convert buildings with passive displays to active workshop spaces.

Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility Accessibility

5.3       Status

5.3.1   Representatives from the Barrier Free New Zealand Trust (BFNZT) and the Earthquake Disability Leadership Group (EDLG) made a presentation to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 16 October 2017 on the development of the Accessibility Charter and the need for full accessibility features to be built into the design brief, design and construction of the proposed Linwood Woolston Aquatic facility

5.3.2   The Accessibility Charter will commit all signatories to model best-practice accessibility through all of their work by providing leadership, education, technical knowledge and promoting the link between accessible places and spaces and health and well-being. It is anticipated that the Christchurch City Council will become one of the initial signatories when the Charter is launched in early November 2017

5.3.3   Both BFNZT and EDLG have been involved in significant projects that have included as an objective providing fully accessible facilities, including involvement in the design of the Metro Sports facility.  That experience has lead the two organisations to believe that fully accessible facilities require:

·    Barrier free auditing and reporting to be conducted at all key stages of a project; concept development, design and construction

·    Audits to be done by independent accessibility specialists

·    Consultation with disabled people and their organisations to provide a user perspective

5.4       Action

5.4.1   That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend that to the Council that the process outlined in paragraph 5.4.3 be undertaken in the design and construction of the Linwood Woolston aquatic facility.

Heathcote Menz Shed

5.5       Status

5.5.1   The Hagley Ferrymead Community Board has previously supported the development of a Heathcote Community Shed including investigating using the former Heathcote Valley Community Library site in Martindales Road.

5.5.2   The Heathcote Community Shed Trust has indicated that they would like to reactivate moves to establish a Community Shed in Heathcote.

5.5.3   The Trust, with the assistance of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Governance Team, has recently undertaken a survey to gauge interest in establishing a Community Shed.  Key results include:

·    A total of 61 responses were received, with 59 supporting the establishment of a Community Shed in Heathcote.

·    52 of the 61 respondents said they would use a Community Shed in Heathcote if one were established.

·    A total of 24 respondents indicated that they be interested in being part of establishing a Community Shed.

5.5.4   On 3 July 2017 the Board received a Property Review Process report. The report lists the properties in the Board’s area that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased.  The report was provided to initiate the process of making future decisions about the use of the land.

5.5.5   The site at 8 Martindales Road was identifies as a property for review with the comment that any use would need to be compatible with the Reserves Act.

5.6       Action

5.6.1   All those interested in establishing a Community Shed in Heathcote will meet to discuss next steps.

5.6.2   The Heathcote Community Shed Trust requests the assistance of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board in obtaining the vacant site at 8 Martindales Road as a site for the Community Shed.

Inner City East Revitalisation Plan

5.7       Status

5.7.1   Te Whare Roimata has received $80,000 from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for each of 2017-18 and 2018-19 for a community-led revitalisation and regeneration project in the Inner City East area.  Funding for the second year will depend on a satisfactory monitoring report after the first year.  A further $10,000 has been allocated to undertake an evaluation of the project.

5.7.2   The project team has met and planned an initial road map to develop the project scope and governance structure.  The first public engagement will be a workshop on 31 October 2017 to establish the themes people would like to see covered in the plan.  Information from a community survey conducted by Te Whare Roimata earlier in the year will form the basis of these discussions.  Further community engagements around possible themes will be undertaken including at the Te Whare Roimata Market Day on 4 November 2017.

5.7.3   The community survey identified issues around safety and crime, poverty, rubbish, loss of shops and housing, a sense of degradation of the area and a lack of outdoor and green spaces.  The survey also identified the need to enhance the positive aspects of the area including the sense of community and connectedness, the location close to the CBD and the availability community facilities and events.

5.7.4   A tiny shops, micro village is proposed for the Linwood Village area. The proposed site is adjacent to the Greening the Rubble temporary park at 108 Stanmore Road.  Five tiny shops will be provided for purposes that will be put forward by the community.  The purpose of the tiny shops project is to stimulate economic activity in centres with a high proportion of vacant sites by providing a space for businesses and services that will serve the local community.  Other initiatives, such as rates incentives, will be used to encourage more permanent developments in the area.  Tiny shops are provided to businesses or organisations at no cost, who will then pay lease costs to the land owner once the establishment period has been met.

5.7.5   The New Zealand Police have expressed renewed concern at some public behaviour in the Doris Lusk Park area and are considering whether either a temporary or permanent liquor ban in the area is the appropriate way forward. 

Proposed Alcohol Ban for Linwood Village and Doris Lusk Park

5.8       Status

5.8.1   The New Zealand Police Community Constable for the Linwood area, Constable Conal Ross, has identified the reoccurrence of alcohol issues in the in Linwood Village, Doris Lusk Park area and would like the Community Board to consider the introduction of alcohol restrictions as a response.

5.8.2   Issues identified by Conal Ross include:

·   Elderly people shopping in the area feel unsafe because of people drinking alcohol on the street front, outside the shops and in the park. A number of local residents no longer use the local shopping facilities because of the issues.

·   A number of business owners feel unsafe when they are arriving and leaving for work.

·   A number of business owners, including Hibbards Butchery, feel their business is suffering because of people being scared to be in the area.

·   Business owners and residents have identified the problem with rubbish, such as bottles, cans and general rubbish, being left in public places throughout the day.

·   Incidents of public drinking and synthetic drug use are frequently observed in patrols of the area.

·   Bus stops in the area are being used for siting and drinking and are sometimes not available for people waiting for the bus.  A number of people have indicated they will not allow their children to use these bus stops because of the drunk and abusive behaviour.

5.8.3   The possibility of imposing alcohol restrictions in the area was considered in 2014 for very similar reasons. At the time staff recommended not to introduce a ban.  Included in the reasons was advice from the New Zealand Police that, at the time, they did not consider the public consumption of alcohol a big enough problem in the area and that “their time and resources were insufficient to enforce a ban”.

5.8.4   The issues of public drinking and drug use and rubbish in the area have been identified as early issues to be addresses as part of the Inner City East Revitalisation Project 

5.9       Community Facilities

5.9.1   Woolston Community Facility – The next working party meeting will be held on Monday 13 November at 5pm, in the Linwood Board Room. Before then there is to be a sod turning ceremony which the Board will be notified of in due course.

5.9.2   Woolston Community Library and Transitional Project – The transitional project on the site of the new community facility on Ferry Road in Woolston will be cleared in the coming weeks. It is the aim that the plant pots will be offered to local schools. The Volunteer library are having an AGM on 26 October to decide what they intend to do whilst the new building is being built.

5.10    Partnerships with the community and organisations

5.10.1 Future Sumner Community MeetingThe biannual community meeting will be held on Thursday 30 November from 6.30pm to 8.30pm, venue to be confirmed. Council staff are working with the Sumner Community Residents Association for updates on Council projects in the area.  

5.11    Infrastructure projects underway

5.11.1 There is nothing to report at time of writing this report.

5.12    Events Report Back

5.12.1 There is nothing to report at time of writing this report.

6.   Parks, Sports and Recreation Update (bi-monthly)

6.1       The next update will be in late November/early December 2017.

7.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

7.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $242,239.  Funding table is Attachment E.

7.2       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $232,744.

7.3       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $5,600.

7.4       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $3,895.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Master plan update – Linwood Village, Ferry Road (Woolston) and Sumner Village Centre

97

b

Otakaro Limited Letter of Reply to the Community Board request to consider a Central City Dog Park

99

c

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary Funding 31 October 2017

101

d

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Strengthening Communities 2017/18 Funding Applications Referred to the Community Resilence Partnership Fund

102

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

06 November 2017

 

 

20.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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