Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 22 November 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

16 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

22 November 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 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  

C       7.       Staff Briefing.................................................................................................................. 17

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       2 Soleares Avenue - Proposed Accessible Parking...................................................... 21

C       9.       198 Avonside Drive -  Proposed No Stopping Restrictions........................................ 29

C       10.     2 Lancaster Street, Waltham - Proposed P5 Parking Restrictions............................ 37

CA     11.     Wilson Park - Redevelopment Proposal to ARA Institute of Canterbury Campus.. 45

Cc     12.     Risingholme Hall - Earthquake Repair Future Use ..................................................... 53

C       13.     Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Waltham School Recycling Project.............................................................................. 59

C       14.     Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Incorporated.................................................... 63

C       15.     Application to the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Special Fund - Linwood Avenue Community Pool ............................................................................. 67

C       16.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 69

B       17.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 85 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 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 Monday, 6 November 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

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

OR

There will be no public forum at this meeting

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 6 November 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

7 November 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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Sarah Templeton declared an interest in Item 16. (Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Heathcote Valley School) and took no part in the discussion or voting on this matter.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00170

Community Board Decision

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

Darrell Latham/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

4.1  Canterbury Tiny House Society

 

Kyle Sutherland, committee member of the Canterbury Tiny House Society, spoke to the Board on the Eco-Tiny House Community to be considered as part of the regeneration of the red zone.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Sutherland for making his presentation to the Board.

 

4.2  Bromley Organics Processing Plant

 

Bruce King, a local resident, spoke to the Board about the odours and perceived hazardous substances emitting from the Christchurch City Council’s Organics Processing Plant in Bromley.

The Chairperson thanked Mr King for making his presentation to the Board.

 

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board requested:

·    Staff advice on when the next Organics Process Plant Community Liaison Group meeting is to be held.

·    Staff advice on the process to appoint a Chairperson to the Organics Processing Plant in Bromley Community Liaison Group.

 

4.3  Issues in Linwood Village

 

The following addressed the Board regarding starting the process to investigate a proposal for an alcohol in public places ban within the environs of Linwood Village to address the community challenges related to anti-social behaviour including alcohol drinking in Doris Lusk Reserve and instances of drug dealing and using within the Linwood Village.

1.    Constable Conal Ross, New Zealand Police

2.    Constable Jeff Martin, New Zealand Police

3.    Les Mason, business owner

4.    Edward Chang, business owner

5.    Danielle Kohi, local resident

6.    Murray Gardner, community worker

7.    Pat Gavin, local resident

8.    James Zheng, business owner

9.    Maria Brooks, local resident

10.  Eamonn Ford, resident.

The Chairperson thanked each presenter in turn for their attendance.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

19. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

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.         Request staff advice 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 allocated to the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.  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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00171

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolved:

1.         To receive the Area Update.

2.         To hold an Inaugural Linwood-Central-Heathcote Edible Gardens Awards in Autumn 2019 and that funding for the awards be allocated from the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.  The Board requested staff to commence preparations for the awards from July 2018.

3.         To write to the District Commander, Canterbury, New Zealand Police, with a copy to the Minister of Police, to request increased policing in the Linwood Village area to combat excessive anti-social behaviour including public drinking, drug trafficking and drug using.

4.         To record the Board’s appreciation of Vimbayi Chitaka and Carly Waddleton, Community Development Advisers, for the contribution that both have made to community development with Linwood.

 

 

19.1   Proposed Alcohol in Public Places Ban in Linwood Village

 

After receiving the presentations from the Linwood Village community representatives the Board agreed to refer the following matter to the Council.

 

Community Board Recommendation LCHB/2017/00172

Part A

Proposed Alcohol Ban in Public Places in Linwood Village

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.      Recommend to the Council to direct staff to install close circuit cameras on the Gloucester Street/Stanmore Road intersection to improve safety of the community in those areas. 

2.      Request staff to investigate a permanent alcohol ban in public places in the Linwood Village area including Doris Lusk Reserve.

3.      Request staff to urgently investigate a temporary alcohol ban in public places in the immediate area of the Linwood Village including Doris Lusk Reserve to take effect for the 2017/18 summer onwards.

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

19.2   Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility

 

Community Board Recommendation LCHB/2017/00173

Part A

Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.      Request staff to design the proposed Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility 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 people with disabilities and their organisations to provide a user perspective.

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                      Carried

 

19.3   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Actions

 

The Board noted and discussed the progress on the Board Priorities Actions listed within the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report. 

 

That Board requested the following updates to the Action List:

1.      Ferry Road (Woolston) Masterplan – the Board requested the timeline for the staff report on the masterplan to be presented to the Board (as per Council Resolution CAPL/2017/00011, 7b). The report is required so that  the Board is able to recommend to the Council the bringing forward of relevant budgets as soon as possible, to enable implementation of the next consultation phase of the Ferry Road Masterplan Project (WL1), including the integration of other projects along the corridor (including school zones). 

2.      Dog Park in Central City – the Board noted the letter of reply from Ōtākaro Limited in relation to the Board’s suggestion for a Central City dog park.  The Board requested that arrangements be made for a walk through the areas under the responsibility of Ōtākaro Limited with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board to identify possible sites that could be developed into a central city dog park.

3.      Greening the East and Radley Park Landscape Plans – the Board noted that the Acting Parks Manager will be meeting with the Board in preparation for the Draft Annual Plan.  The Board wish to also discuss with him the Greening the East Project and Radley Park Landscape Plan.

4.      Heathcote River Flooding – The Board noted that a report on flood mitigation measures is planned to be presented to the Council’s 23 November 2017 meeting.

5.      Letter to Educationists – The Board noted that this action was completed with the media release over Labour Weekend 2017 to teachers for their work during the Canterbury Earthquakes

6.      Proposal for investigation of an Alcohol in public places ban  in Linwood Village – the Board requested that this matter be added to the Board Priorities List for staff to update each Board meeting through the Area Report.

7.      Linwood Village Social Issues - the Board requested that this matter be added to the Board Priorities List for staff to update each Board meeting through the Area Report.

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00175 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

8.   Clydesdale Street, Woolston - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00176

Part C

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.

5.       Request staff to review the impact on the installation of the no stopping restrictions on Clydesdale Street and advise the results of the review to the Board.

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00177 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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 six metres.

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00178 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

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

 

Staff Recommendation 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to sixty minutes between Monday and Friday between the hours of 8.00am and 6.00pm 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.

 

Board Consideration

After attending a site visit to Garlands Road earlier in the day with Board members staff tabled amended staff recommendations for the Board to consider.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00179

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to sixty minutes between Monday and Friday between the hours of 6.00am and 8.00pm 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.

2.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Garlands Road commencing at its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Garlands Road commencing at its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 32 metres.

Darrell Latham/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00180 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

2.            Request that the Major Cycleway Routes Project Team advise on the most appropriate Give Way sign. 

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

13. 122 Richardson Terrace - Proposed Road Name

 

Board Consideration

The Board discussed the matter of bringing to the attention of developers to suggest te reo Maori for naming of roads and right of ways.  The Board wish the Roads and Rights of Way Naming Policy to be review to include an easy guide to how to suggest te reo Maori names for new roads and rights of way.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00181 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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

Sally Buck/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                            Carried

 

Community Board Recommendation LCHB/2017/00182

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.      Review the Roads and Rights of Way Naming Policy (1993) to include an easy guide for developers on how to suggest te reo Maori names for new roads and rights of way.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00183(Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Sally Buck/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00184 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

Sara Templeton/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00185 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Grants $2,000 from the Discretionary Response Fund 2017/18 to Heathcote Valley School towards sunshade sails for the pool.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                               Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00186 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Jake McLellan/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

Jake McLellan left the meeting at 05:36 pm.

Yani Johanson left the meeting at 05:36 pm.

 

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

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00187

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decided :

1.         That the report lay on the table until the Board has received further information as to whether the grant is still needed since the Phillipstown Hub has recently received a grant from the Christchurch Resilience Partnership Fund.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

20. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    2018 Garden Pride Awards – The Board suggested that the 2018 Garden Pride Awards be held at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre.

·    Customer Service Requests (CSRs) – The Board were advised to use the Customer Service Request service for maintenance and repairs matters for Council Assets and not to engage directly with staff.  The CSR process ensures that a record is held centrally and resources are used wisely.  If the matter has not been completed within a reasonable time then members should contact the Community Governance Manager.

 

20.1   Moa Bone Cave, Redcliffs

 

The Board discussed community concerns on the lifting of the temporary 30 kilometre per hour and the condition of the road at Moa Bone Cave in Redcliffs.

 

The Board requested staff advice on the timelines for:

·    The installation of a pedestrian footpath passed Moa Bone Cave in Redcliffs.

·    The resealing of Main Road in front of Moa Bone Cave.

and on how to lower the speed on Main Road, Redcliffs on the bend and in front of Moa Bone Cave.

 

20.2   Heathcote Community Centre

 

The Board were advised that the Heathcote Community Centre building small defects or omissions (SNAGS) by the building contractor have still not been rectified.

 

The Board requested staff advice on the timeline for the Heathcote Community Centre post building small defects or omissions to be completed.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6.40pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 22nd DAY OF November 2017.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

7.        Staff Briefing

Reference:

17/1311551

Contact:

Selena Robertson

Selena.robertson@ccc.govt.nz

0211724817

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Woolston Community Facility and Carpark – 689 Ferry Road

Selena Robertson

Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services Unit

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Woolston Community Facility - Nov Update

18

b

Woolston Community Facility - Carpark Concept

19

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

8.        2 Soleares Avenue - Proposed Accessible Parking

Reference:

17/1281783

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 Soleares Avenue 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 staff at the Mount Pleasant Medical Centre, 2 Soleares Avenue, Mount Pleasant.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure that the Medical 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 Soleares Avenue, commencing at a point 48 metres south of the south western kerbline of McCormacks Bay Road and extending in a northerly 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 Soleares Avenue (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 and the adjacent amenities

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 Health Centre for an accessible parking at this location. A case was made which indicated that the Mount Pleasant Medical Centre has several regular patients that have mobility difficulties. These visitors often have to compete for parking space on Soleares Avenue and experience pain and discomfort due to the distance between the available parking space and the Medical Centre.

5.2       Staff have investigated the local street environment and agree with the concern. There are parking opportunities nearby, though no accessible spaces.  The spaces adjacent to the health centre are located in a lay by section and are occupied for most of the day.

5.3       As well as the Medical Centre, the site is adjacent to a pharmacy and hair studio so is also a destination for visitors with mobility issues,

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 an accessible parking space on Soleares Avenue (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide an accessible parking space on Soleares Avenue adjacent to Mount Pleasant Medical 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       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been sent to the property owners and tenants at nearby properties, namely 2-8 Soleares Avenue and 46 McCormacks Bay Road.

6.5       No responses were received in objection or requesting amendment. An email in support was received by the resident living adjacent to the medical centre.

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 and local amenities

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 accessible parking to assist visitors with mobility issues.

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

Soleares Avenue accessible park site plan

26

b

Soleares Avenue location plan

27

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

9.        198 Avonside Drive -  Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1302234

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 the east side of Avonside Drive 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 Avonside Girls School, 198 Avonside Drive.

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 east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 18 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 37 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 sight lines for vehicles turning out of the student car park

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Avonside Girls School raised concerns that parked vehicles parked on Avonside Drive caused sight line constraints to students leaving the school car park. This applied to the visibility in both directions along Avonside Drive.

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to improve safety at this access.

5.3       Council staff visited the site and investigated the layout of the access.  Staff agree with the school that both sight lines can challenging and should be kept clear of parked vehicles.

5.4       The crash history for this location has been checked. No crashes were officially reported at this location since 2011. Nevertheless staff still consider that there are reasonable grounds for concern and that restrictions are justified.

5.5       As six parking spaces would be lost, staff have considered the effects of this and are satisfied that there are sufficient alternative locations within a short walking distance. Consequently the displaced parking effects are considered acceptable.

5.6       This school is scheduled to relocate to a new site in 2019. However in the meantime this proposal will be required and may well be necessary for the future use.

5.7       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will ensure that this section of Avonside Drive will remain clear and improve the sight lines for drivers turning out of the student car park.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the east side of Avonside Drive 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       This proposal is located wholly adjacent to the school site. The Avon River is located immediately opposite and the site located adjacently to the north is red zoned.

6.5       Consequently it has not been considered necessary to consult, other than being supported by Avonside Girls School.

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 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:

·   Provides improved sight lines for vehicles turning out of the student car park onto Avonside Drive

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in the loss of approximately six 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 No Stopping Restrictions to support the safe movement of vehicles leaving the student car park.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety concerns of Avonside Girls School.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

198 Avonside Drive location plan

34

b

198 Avonside Drive site plan

35

 

 

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

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

10.    2 Lancaster Street, Waltham - Proposed P5 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/1281823

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 P5 parking restrictions along the east side of Lancaster Street and the north side of Stevens Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

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

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve access for customers 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 5 minutes between Monday and Friday during the hours 7am to 4pm on the east side of Lancaster Street commencing at a point 11 metres north the of its intersection with the northern kerbline of Stevens Street and extending in a northerly direction for 6 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 5 minutes between Monday and Friday during the hours 7am to 4pm on the north side of Stevens Street commencing at a point 9 metres east of its intersection with the eastern kerbline of Lancaster Street and extending in an easterly direction for 12 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 P5 parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking opportunities and convenience for customers and visitors to the local business

·     Provides opportunities for delivery operations

·     Deters all-day parking adjacent to the local businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Could lead to all day parking occurring elsewhere at an unsuitable location

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business at 2 Lancaster Street in Waltham expressed concern that customers and visitors were experiencing difficulties parking close to his business and that this was affecting their customers’ inclination to choose services in that area.

5.2       Since the customer’s business is a combination of dairy type convenience goods and takeaway food, this request is for 5 minute parking during business hours 7am to 4 pm between Monday and Friday.

5.3       Upon investigation, council staff observed that the spaces adjacent to the business were consistently occupied by the same vehicles for relatively long periods and were clearly not customers. 

5.4       Staff consulted the business owner to determine the maximum demand. He indicated that there can be up to 4-5 vehicle based customers at busy times and that three short stay parking spaces would be appropriate. Consequently the proposal includes one P5 park on Lancaster Street and two on Stevens Street

5.5       There are other parking opportunities on Stevens Street and Lancaster Street, though would require a longer walk of a few minutes. Consequently, staff are satisfied that the effects of any displaced all day parking would be minimal.

5.6       Staff consider that the request is reasonable and would be in the interests of enabling the business to operate effectively.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P5 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P5 restrictions adjacent to 2 Lancaster 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 tenants and property owners in the 10 nearest properties, namely 2-14 Lancaster Street and 65-67 Stevens Street.

6.5       No letters of objection or requesting amendment were received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $500 to install road markings and install four signs on three new poles and one existing pole.

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 higher turnover of parking opportunities and convenience for customers and visitors to the local businesses

·     Provides opportunities for delivery operations

·     Deters all-day parking adjacent to the local businesses

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Could lead to all day parking occurring elsewhere at an unsuitable location

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 deter all day parking.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the transport demands of the local businesses

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2 Lancaster St site plan

42

b

2 Lancaster St location plan

43

 

 

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

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

11.    Wilson Park - Redevelopment Proposal to ARA Institute of Canterbury Campus

Reference:

17/1260299

Contact:

Russel Wedge

Russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941-8270

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to endorse and recommend to the Council to approve the proposed landscape changes to Wilson Park by ARA Institute of Canterbury (ARA), Madras Street Campus to improve the safety and accessibility of students, staff and visitors to ARA campus, refer Attachment 1.

1.2       The Delegations Register, section 5(b) states:

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board does not have delegated authority to determine these matters for the area situation within the Central City Area marked on Plan A (at page 186 of this Delegations Register). Reports on these matters must come directly to the Council.

1.3       Wilson Park is situated within the Central City Area.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated originating from a request from ARA Madras Street Campus who are proposing to redevelop the entranceway from Wilson Park to the ARA campus.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision of 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 significance matrix. 

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.         Endorse the landscape changes proposed for Wilson Park as part of the Ara Institute of Canterbury Campus High Street entrance upgrade as detailed on the Developed Concept Plan – High Street Entrance (Stage 2) Dated 18.09.2017 by Align Planning and Design (Attachment 1), and

2.         Recommend to the Council to approve the proposed landscape changes to Wilson Park as part of the ARA campus High Street entrance upgrade, as detailed on the Developed Concept Plan – High Street Entrance (Stage 2) Dated 18.09.2017 by Align Planning and Design (Attachment 1)

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.3 Overall customer satisfaction with neighbourhood parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Redesign of Wilson Park Entrance to ARA Campus (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Status Quo – No Redevelopment of Entranceway Through Wilson Park

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   A safer entranceway is provided for students, staff and visitors entering the campus through Wilson Park from High Street.

·   The new entranceway will comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) for safety standards.

·   The removal of the steps, which are being replaced with a ramp will provide full accessibility for disabled users.

·   The redesign and construction is being fully funded and project managed by ARA.

·   The Council is working in partnership with ARA for the benefit of the community.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a temporary disruption to one area of Wilson Park while the new entranceway is being constructed.

 

5.   Background

Background

5.1       The entrance to the ARA campus from High Street is through Wilson Park. Students and visitors to the campus have to walk alongside high plastered concrete walls and up a number of steps to enter the campus grounds.

5.2       The high solid walls with mature trees and shrubs growing behind them create Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) safety issues. There is the potential for people to hide behind the walls and amongst the plants creating safety issues for students and visitors walking into the campus from Wilson Park.

5.3       To enter the campus from Wilson Park there are a number of steps that people are required to navigate. There is no ramp for people to use within close proximity to the steps when entering the campus from Wilson Park.

The Proposal

5.4       ARA are proposing to redesign the area between Wilson Park and ARA campus to improve the safety and accessibility for students and visitors entering the park from High Street.

5.5       The majority of the proposed landscape construction will occur on land owned by the ARA campus. There is a small section of the existing entranceway on Wilson Park between the ‘Passing Time’ sculpture on the corner of High and St. Asaph Street, and the ARA campus that ARA would like to redesign. The re-design includes removing the plastered concrete wall and steps leading into the campus. The mature trees and shrubs on Council land will be retained. There is one small tree that is in poor health on the northern boundary of ARA land, next to the U Block area that has been identified by our arborist to be removed (identified on the plan with a red dotted circle). All of the other trees identified to be removed are on ARA land.

5.6       New timber lighting poles will be installed, funded by ARA along the redesigned entranceway through Wilson Park.

5.7       ARA have agreed to fund the redesign of the construction and landscaping proposed on Wilson Park. ARA believe the redesign will provide a safer access and environment for students, visitors and staff when entering the campus through Wilson Park.

6.   Content

ARA Redevelopment Vision

6.1       Using modern and flexible learning facilities, ARA strive to create a contemporary educational environment that draws upon the traditional ‘classroom’ but is flexible to be carried out in a wide range of facilities on campus, with an increasing emphasis on collaboration.

6.2       The campus grounds will create human scaled spaces, defined by buildings or high quality landscapes to make spaces friendlier and more inviting places.

6.3       ARA will have vitality, comfort and access to technology that will be appealing to students, staff, visitors and those contemplating study at the campus. This will be through producing social spaces offering a welcoming environment to the campus, to encourage people to enjoy, share with others, reflect and have fun.

6.4       Students will be trained in a leading learning environment, producing high quality graduates that will have had the best possible campus experience and skills required to contribute to the revitalisation of Christchurch.

Safety and Accessibility

6.5       The proposal will take into account CPTED requirements. The current landscaping on campus has areas which are felt to be dangerous and unsafe.  The area is designed for safe pathways, such as increasing visibility by utilising low shrub planting and providing sufficient after-hours lighting. With the improvement of pathways and sight lines through the campus, CPTED requirements will be met and safe night navigation achieved.

6.6       The improvement of accessibility around ARA is also a major priority.  To create flush transitions between pedestrian and vehicle access routes on campus, the design aims to reduce the number of kerbs and steps. The use of minimal gradient ramps will give wheel chair access to all raised lawn areas or sunken areas. 

6.7       The design has been developed with the use of different paving materials to make the navigation of the campus easier for students and to provide a defined central pathway running through the entire length of the campus. These also relate to the room and building numbering system and wayfinding principles.

6.8       Accessibility is also achieved through the implementation of key visual markers and consistent repetitive elements. The use of sculptures, and visual cues are an important part of navigation and should support the visually impaired.

Ecology Sustainability

6.9       The softs landscape palette has been chosen to give the campus year round seasonal variety, colour and leaf interest.  Species are all hardy to the Canterbury environment and will be locally sourced. 

6.10    Part of ARA’s values and vision include the utilisation and expression of sustainable techniques around the campus. This means the use of design principles to shape and define the overall campus master plan, at a macro and micro scale.

6.11    Low energy consumption lighting is proposed for the campus with LED lighting being predominant, with this also helping to reduce ongoing maintenance costs.

6.12    The developed design has predominantly been designed with native species with the inclusion of some exotic species to add colour and seasonal variety.  The use of native species will mean less water consumption and lower maintenance costs. By retaining existing tree and shrub planting where possible, budget costs will be kept down and cost savings can be made.  Plants specified should be sourced from local suppliers to ensure that they are hardened to the Canterbury environment.

6.13    High quality durable materials are to be used and will also be of local supply.  All paving and concrete products will be sourced from the Canterbury region. Any timber specified should be sustainably grown in the Canterbury region (Macrocarpa timber).

6.14    The design retains as many existing trees as possible and incorporate both native and exotic species.

Cultural Design Vision

6.15    The ARA campus is a culturally diverse environment. The landscape will look to embrace and showcase the different cultures.  There are a number of cultural symbolisms and artworks in the campus landscaping plan.

6.16    A performance area has been created in the North Green to allow for a variety of uses including multi-cultural displays. The South Green area will recognise other cultures and will include a Chinese Tiled Gate structure using tiles presented to ARA by the Christchurch sister cities association. 

6.17    There has been engagement throughout the design process with Maori stakeholders at Ara with a review of the developed design held with the Ara Kaiarahi. The final detailed design will also be reviewed and developed with this key stakeholder group’s involvement.

6.18    The intention of the High street entry is to connect the city with the Te Puna Wanaka (the main centre in Ara for Māori and Pasifika learning and engagement) landscape already on Campus which looks to embrace Maori and Pasifika culture and to create a series of spaces which allow for waiting, welcoming, gathering and performing.

6.19    The overall landscaping project should embrace different cultures on campus to showcase the valuable layers, stories and meanings they provide to the campus and its inhabitants

6.20    Key areas observed in the design include the memorial plaques that are directly related to specific trees and shrubs.  The linkages of memorial spaces are considered in the design.

 


 

7.   Option 1 – Redesign of Wilson Park Entrance to ARA Campus (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       ARA campus are proposing to redesign and construct the entranceway from Wilson Park into the ARA Campus. The proposed design will increase the safety and accessibility for visitors, students and staff entering the campus from the High Street entrance.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the community engagement proposed by ARA Campus, which includes regular updates to the students and staff on Campus.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

7.5       ARA has maintained engagement with the ARA Kaiarahi on the proposed development. ARA states:

The intention of the High street entry is to connect the city with the Te Puna Wanaka (the main centre in Ara for Māori and Pasifika learning and engagement) landscape already on Campus which looks to embrace Maori and Pasifika culture and to create a series of spaces which allow for waiting, welcoming, gathering and performing.

 

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       The ARA campus have undertaken consultation with the students and staff who use the campus and specifically to ensure the campus entrance is catering for a diverse range of people and abilities.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies to provide a safe and accessible city.

Financial Implications Cost of Implementation - <enter text>

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no significant change to maintenance costs as the area is already being maintained as part of the Council’s park maintenance contracts.

7.9       Funding source – The redesign and construction is being funded by ARA campus. There is no funding requirements from Council.

Legal Implications

7.10    The health and safety requirements will be implemented by ARA campus as part of their overall re-development of the campus.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a minimal, if any risk to Council as ARA will be responsible for the health and safety requirements for the development of the site. The Council’s reserve land within the area of development occupies a small area of the development site with the majority of the construction area on ARA land.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - The implementation of the entrance way on Wilson Park is dependent on the Council, as land owner giving their permission for work on the park.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – ARA are proposing to have the majority of the work completed while students are on Christmas break.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   A safer entranceway is provided for students, staff and visitors entering the campus through Wilson Park from High Street.

·   The new entranceway will comply with CPTED for safety standards.

·   The removal of the steps, which are being replaced with a ramp will provide full accessibility for disabled users.

·   The redesign and construction is being fully funded and project managed by ARA.

·   The Council is working in partnership with ARA for the benefit of the community.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a temporary disruption to one area of Wilson Park while the new entranceway is being constructed.

8.   Option 2 – Status Quo – No Redevelopment of Entranceway Through Wilson Park

Option Description

8.1       The Council declines to give permission as landowner for any redesign and construction on Wilson Park.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is high and inconsistent with section 2 of this report.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance would have a direct impact on people using Wilson Park to enter the ARA campus. The current status quo is below the desirable standard for CPTED and is not fully accessible by disabled people entering the ARA campus from Wilson Park.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       The students, staff and visitors using Wilson Park to enter and leave the ARA campus are specifically affected by this option due to the inaccessibility created by the steps.  Their views to create an accessible entrance that also meets CPTED requirements would not be met.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – the current entrance is not accessible for disabled people.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - the current entrance is not accessible for disabled people

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – to select Option 1.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – there are no changes to the current situation.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – status quo remains

8.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    No legal implications at the moment.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    There is a risk the Council could be seen by the public as not taking the opportunity to ensure their parks are safe and accessible to everyone.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

8.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages to this option

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council is not providing a fully accessible route through Wilson Park to the ARA campus

·   Council is not ensuring the public have a CPTED safe route through Wilson Park to the ARA

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Wilson Park Redevelopment Proposal to ARA Campus

52

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

12.    Risingholme Hall - Earthquake Repair Future Use

Reference:

17/1292202

Contact:

Russel Wedge

Russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941-8270

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the removal of Risingholme Hall from the Council “List 3” heritage buildings identified as requiring repairs, Long Term Plan (LTP) funding, and having no future use determined for the building once repaired.

1.2       The Risingholme Community Centre have provided information that they have a number of community groups both short and long term, that would like to use the building.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is generated by staff following a request from the Community to use Risingholme Hall which was identified in a Council Public Excluded Heritage Buildings Report and a resolution stopping all repair work until a future use of the building could be determined.

1.4       Council meeting 5 October 2017, Public Excluded Report Resolution CNCL/2017/00273, section 6:

Agrees that the repair and restoration of any … List 3 heritage buildings detailed in this report shall not proceed until the future use of the respective building is identified and approved by either the relevant Community Board or Council, as per Council’s Delegations Register”.

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 significance matrix.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the removal of Risingholme Hall from the Council “List 3” of heritage buildings that identified buildings requiring Long Term Plan (LTP) funding and having no determined use, which is no longer applicable owing to the Risingholme Community Centre will manage the future occupancy of the Risingholme Hall and funding is through existing budgets.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.1 Implement a programme to ensure a consistent and broadened level of historic heritage protection within Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Recommence Earthquake Strengthening and Repair Work (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Earthquake Strengthening and Repairs Remains On Hold

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   The building will be able to be open and occupied by the community in August 2018

·   The building will be safe to be occupied with an NBS 67% compliance.

·   The building can be used for community activities and as a base for the community.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context

Risingholme Hall - Heritage Building

5.1       Risingholme Hall was damaged in the earthquakes and requires strengthening to bring it up to the Council’s agreed New Build Standard (NBS) of 67%.

5.2       Tenders to undertake the strengthening work on Risingholme Hall closed in mid-2017 and were being evaluated when the Council in October 2017 requested all earthquake repair work on heritage buildings be stopped.

5.3       The Council has expressed concern that the repair and restoration of Council owned heritage building were being presented to Council for decision making on an ad hoc basis rather than as part of a city-wide heritage asset repair strategy.

5.4       The Council also wanted the local communities to have the opportunity to be involved with the future of the heritage buildings. The Council was particularly interested in community involvement with heritage buildings that still required Long Term Plan (LTP) funding and buildings that didn’t have a pre-determined use once the building was up to NBS 67%.

5.5       Risingholme Hall was identified in the October 2017 Council report as a building that required additional LTP funding and had no future determined use once the building had been repaired.

5.6       Since the funding was put on hold in October 2017 the Risingholme Community Centre, which is the organisation that manages the community groups and community activities within the building, has provided information on the future use of the building (refer Attachment one).

5.7       Council Staff have also identified funding for the repair of Risingholme Hall from this year’s budget and have confirmed that additional funding will not be required through the LTP process.

5.8       In the Council report that put a hold on any earthquake repair work, the report stated that all repair and restoration work on Risingholme Hall could not proceed until the Community Board had approved the future use of the building.

5.9       The Risingholme Community Centre have provided information on the past and future use of Risingholme Hall and believe the building forms a significant community venue for the local communities.

6.   Option 1 – Recommence Earthquake Strengthening and Repair Work (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To recommence the earthquake strengthening work for Risingholme Hall. The building had a high community occupancy rate before the earthquakes and a significant number of these community groups have expressed a desire through the Risingholme Community Centre group to return to the building as soon as it is repaired.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the community engagement proposed in section 2.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The Risingholme Community Centre are specifically affected by this option as they are the primary users of the building.  They have expressed a desire to return to the building as soon as possible once the strengthening work has been completed, refer Attachment One for their proposed use of the building.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies to maximise the use of Council buildings by the communities.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – The total project budget to complete the strengthening and repairs to reopen the building is just under $1,000,000.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – these are included in the operational building maintenance budget.

6.9       Funding source – There is existing funding via a Council resolution in 2013 for the Tranche 1 of the Facilities Rebuild Programme.

Legal Implications

6.10    The strengthening of the building will bring the building up to the Council’s agreed New Building Standard (NBS) 67%, enabling it to be safely occupied.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    There is minimal risk, if any, with enabling the earthquake strengthening to be completed up to the agreed NBS.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - The proposed strengthening work has been put out to tender, which have closed. The proposed time frame is dependent upon the contractors being onsite by December 2017.

6.13    Implementation timeframe – The contract being awarded and the contractors being onsite by December 2017. The work completion is expected to be by end of August 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The building will be able to be open and occupied by the community in August 2018

·   The building will be safe to be occupied with an NBS 67% compliance.

·   The building can be used for community activities and as a base for the community.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages to this option.

7.   Option 2 – Earthquake Strengthening and Repairs Remains On Hold

Option Description

7.1       The tenders to strengthen the Risingholme Hall up to NBS 67% are not awarded and the repairs are kept on hold. The building remains closed and unusable to the community.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The Risingholme Community Centre are specifically affected by this option due as they will be unable to use the building as a community venue in the future.  The Risingholme Community Centre are wanting to use the repaired building for the community as soon as possible.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – the local community are unable to use a community building that was used a lot by the community before it sustained earthquake damage

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – funds for earthquake repairs

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – availability of funds.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – no cost

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – status quo

7.9       Funding source – no funding source

Legal Implications

7.10    Providing the building remains closed to the public there are no future legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk the building may deteriorate further if another earthquake should occur.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Tenders have been received for the proposed repair work, which will need to be cancelled if the work does not proceed.

·   The local community will be further disadvantaged as they won’t have a community centre.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Use of Risingholme Hall by Risingholme Community Centre

58

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

13.    Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Waltham School Recycling Project

Reference:

17/1339174

Contact:

Jay Sepie

jay.sepie@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5102

 

 

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 the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

57314

Waltham Primary School

Waltham School Recycling Project

$933

 

Origin of Report

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

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.

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $933 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Waltham School towards the Waltham School Recycling Project.

 

 

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

$32,785

$223,174

$222,241

 

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

Linwood Central Heathcote 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund Application Matrix Waltham School Recycling Project

61

 

 

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

Jay Sepie - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

14.    Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Incorporated

Reference:

17/1210316

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 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

57143

Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc.

Sunrise Seats

$11,485

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc.

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 $7,990 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Inc. towards sunrise seats.

 

 

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

$195,834

 

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 - Friends of Edmonds Garden Incorporated

65

b

Sunrise Seat - Edmonds Factory Garden

66

 

 

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

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

15.    Application to the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Special Fund - Linwood Avenue Community Pool

Reference:

17/1296665

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding to the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Special Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Youthtown Inc.

Linwood Avenue Community Pool 2018

$6,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Christchurch Branch of Youthtown Inc. towards operating the Linwood Avenue Community Pool.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $6,000 from its Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Special Fund to Youthtown Inc. towards Linwood Avenue Community Pool 2018.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1        The Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Swimming Advancement Fund was established as a result of the former Woolston Park Swimming Club entrusting their monies to the former Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to be administered for the benefit of swimmers with limited means to progress their swimming skills.

4.2       There is a clear need for accessible recreational swimming opportunities in Linwood/Woolston and an aquatic recreation centre for Linwood/Woolston is included in the Long Term Plan.  In the interim, Linwood Avenue School is willing to work alongside other organisations to make the school's swimming pools available to the wider community during the school holidays.

4.3       The Christchurch Branch of Youthtown Inc. is a proven local provider of recreation programmes for youth development in Linwood and have established relationships with local organisations, schools, the Community Board, Christchurch City Council Recreation and Sports Unit and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Governance Team.

4.4       In 2016 and 2017 Youthtown operated the Linwood Avenue School pool from early January to early February, seven days a week, 11am to 6pm. An entry fee of $1 applied to swimmers 5 years and over. Swimming lessons were introduced in 2017 for $2 per swimmer and these were also very successful and will be offered again. The community pool has proven to be a popular and successful initiative and families in the area would like the pool to be open again these summer holidays.

4.5       A memorandum of understanding is in place between Linwood Avenue School and Youthtown to operate the pool to recognised national aquatic standards. Costs are being kept to a reasonable level with the training of local youth to be volunteer life guards to assist paid lifeguards to maintain the pool and users safety, which also supports positive youth development. The operational budget for the project is $8,114 for lifeguard wages, swimming lessons, volunteer expenses, promotions, chlorine, power, a porta loo, family fun days (including BBQs), pool equipment, first aid, and sunscreen. In addition to these expenses and not included in the budget are the costs associated with Linwood Avenue School providing use of the pool, Youthtown Inc. administering the project, and Christchurch City Council Recreation and Sports Unit providing lifeguard training and technical support as required.

4.6       The pool will be open for 5 weeks from January to February, 11am to 6pm each day, weather permitting with an entry fee of $1 for swimmers 5 years and over and $2 for swimming lessons per swimmer. As a result, the community will be offered affordable, fun, healthy, aquatic recreation opportunities, including free swimming lessons for younger children, within an enjoyable, well supervised environment.  

4.7       At the time of writing, the balance of the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Special Fund is as detailed below.

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$17,702

$11,702

 

4.8       This application fits within the objectives of the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Special Fund criteria and is eligible for funding.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

16.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/737577

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.         Apply to the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee to appear and be heard on behalf of the Christchurch City Council to the Liquor Licensing Application for 375 Ferry Road.

3.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

4.         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   Sumner Library Operating Hours - at the Board’s 15 November 2017 meeting the Board requested staff advice regarding operating hours for the reopened Sumner Library, including the current demand and options for increasing weekend opening hours, before the Board needs to consider its submission to the Long Term Plan.  Staff have advised:

The library at Matuku Takatako: Sumner Centre is being well used by the local community.  Some community members have asked if the Saturday hours could be extended or if the library could be opened on Sundays.  Owing to the current financial climate, libraries are unable to increase the level of service.

3.2.2   Board Priorities Action 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.  Please refer to Attachment A.

3.2.3   Signage Council Land and Reserves – the Board at its 18 October 2017 meeting 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.  Staff have advised:

Signs located in a public place may require a permit under the Public Places Bylaw 2008 either as a commercial activity or an obstruction depending on the nature and content of the sign.  Signage located in a public place also need to be assessed for compliance against the relevant provisions in the District Plan.

 

Where non-compliant signage is detected, the Council has a range of enforcement options available including working with the individual responsible for the sign to achieve voluntary compliance. Other enforcement options available will depend on the nature of the breach but include infringement fines issued under the Resource Management Act 1991 for breaches of District Plan requirements; or prosecution under the Local Government Act 2002 for breaches of the Public Places Bylaw 2008.

 

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

3.3.1   Liquor Licence Application 375 Ferry Road – Staff have been advised that the public notification period has now closed.  There has been 121 objections, including one objection that had a petition attached with 35 signatories, received for the liquor licence application at 375 Ferry Road and there will be a hearing on this application.  The hearing will be held early 2018. 

·   The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act allows a territorial authority to authorise a person to appear and be heard at a hearing of that person if granted leave to do so by the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee (DLC) (Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act s204(2)(b)).

·   The Council has provided delegated authority for Community Boards to appoint a member of each Community Board to appear for the purpose of giving community input.

·   The right to “appear and be heard”:

·   Does not make the Community Board an Objector.

·   Does not make the Community Board a “party” to the hearing.

·   This role is a lesser ‘right’ than an objector has.  There is no right to call or cross examine witnesses as is the case with objectors.

·   At the Board’s public forum on 16 August 2017, the Board heard from some members of the community that had heard that a liquor licence application was being applied for at premises situated at 375 Ferry Road.  The public forum attendees were against the liquor licence being granted by the District Licensing Committee.

·   The Board is asked to consider if it wishes to apply to the District Licensing Committee for the Board to be granted leave to appear and be heard at the alcohol licence application for 375 Ferry Road.

3.4       Board area Consultations/Engagement

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

Christchurch Tree and Urban Forest Survey

1 November 2017 to 1 December 2017

Bays Area skate project (upcoming)

29 January 2018 – 26 February 2018

 

3.4.2   Edmond Street, Woolston Street Name Correction Request – The Council have received a request from TJ Edmonds great grandson to correct Edmond Street to Edmonds Street which was named after his great grandfather.  Staff have advised that it would seem that sometime between 1886 and 1893 the street changed from being known as Edmonds Street to Edmond Street. 

·   Under the Roads and Right of Ways Naming Policy clause 8 states:

Where a road or right of way name is requested to be changed, a minimum of 85% of residents and owners must give their consent to the change.

·   A consultation process needs to be undertaken with the residents (whose addresses will change) and then Community Board approval of the change needs to be given.   Consultation will commence by early 2018.

 

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.  The priorities of the Board’s will be discussed at that meeting.  The Board may wish to reiterate its priorities to ensure that these are included.

3.7       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

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

3.8       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.8.1   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 7 December 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

5.   Significant Community Issues

5.1       Linwood Village Alcohol Ban

During public forum at its meeting on 6 November 2017 the Board heard from 10 individuals, including two constables from New Zealand Police, about the need for an alcohol ban in the Linwood Village area.  The Board heard from the speakers about the issues of public drinking and the effects of this in the Linwood Village area that include:

·    There is a group of men, some of who are homeless who spend time at Doris Lusk Reserve, a temporary Gapfiller park and the general shopping area, who residents report make them feel unsafe due to their appearance and antisocial behaviour;

·    Local residents feel intimidated by those who are drinking at Doris Lusk Reserve and the temporary park.  This includes some men who are homeless and who people feel intimidated by;

·    Business owners feel that the drinking in front of business premises makes local people feel unsafe going into these premises.  The impact has been that businesses suffer loss of potential earnings and makes it difficult for businesses to operate viably;

·    People feel unsafe at night due to the noise made by the group particularly at night.  There are times when there is fighting witnessed at Doris Lusk Reserve.  This makes residents feel very unsafe; and

·    Behaviours that suggest drug use and trafficking by some members of the group, begging by a couple of people (not necessarily part of this group), and general antisocial behaviour.

·    The Board made the follow resolutions at its meeting of 6 November 2017:

That the Board recommend to the Council to implement a temporary alcohol ban from 2017/18 summer while staff investigate the implementing a permanent alcohol ban and for the Council to install close circuit cameras on the Gloucester Street/Stanmore Road intersection.

That the Board To write to the District Commander, Canterbury New Zealand Police, with a copy to the Minister of Police, to request increased policing in Linwood Village area to combat excessive antisocial behaviour including public drinking, drug trafficking and drug use.

6.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1.1   Linwood/Woolston Pool – at the Council’s 9 November 2017 meeting the Council resolved:

Request a report to a Council meeting by 7 December 2017 regarding the proposal to enable the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to initiate community consultation on the site selection and initial scope for the Linwood Woolston Aquatic Facility, and the Board are to report back to the Council with recommendations once the consultation has been completed.

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

7.1       The bi monthly Parks, Sports and Recreation Update is attached.  Attachment B

8.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

8.1       At the Board’s 2 October 2017 the Board considered a Discretionary Response Fund application from the Phillipstown Community Hub for funding for a container.  The Board lay the report on the table until the Board has received further information as to whether the grant is still needed since the Phillipstown Hub has recently received a grant from the Christchurch Resilience Partnership Fund.

8.1.1   The Phillipstown Community Board of Trustees have advised that they have decided to withdraw the application.  The Board will use part of the funding the Hub received from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.  The application for the container expenses was submitted prior to the Community Hub been advised that the Hub had been successful to secure funding from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

8.2       Total of unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $237,032.  Funding table is Attachment D.

8.3       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $229,744.

8.4       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $5,100.

8.5       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $2,188.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Action Updates 22 November 2017

74

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Parks Bimonthly Update - 22 November 2017

77

c

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

80

d

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Allocations 22 November 2017

84

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

22 November 2017

 

 

17.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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