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 14 February 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

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

 

 

9 February 2018

 

 

 

 

 

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

14 February 2018

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 15

C       8.       Staff Briefing.................................................................................................................. 21

STAFF REPORTS

C       9.       147 Opawa Road, Opawa - Proposed No Stopping, P10 and P30 Restrictions........ 23

C       10.     Madras Street near Ely Street, Moa Place and Melrose Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 31

C       11.     420 St Asaph Street, Phillipstown - Proposed Removal of P5 Loading Zone and new No Stopping Restrictions.................................................................................................... 39

C       12.     Springfield Road, St Albans - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions........................... 47

C       13.     Redcliffs School Site - Retention of Assets for New Park........................................... 55

C       14.     22 Bridle Path Road - Proposed Road Names............................................................. 77

C       15.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund: Christchurch Boys High School........................................................................................................... 81

C       16.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's Youth Development Fund - Boris Van Bruchem............................................................................................ 85

C       17.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - February 2018........ 87

B       18.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 117 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

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, 29 January 2018  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 beginning of the 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.

 

5.1

147 Ōpāwa Road, Ōpāwa - Proposed No Stopping, P10 and P30 Restrictions

Kamlesh Patel, Ōpāwa Dairy owner will address the Board regarding 147 Ōpāwa Road, Ōpāwa - Proposed No Stopping, P10 and P30 Restrictions Report on this agenda.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 29 January 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Jake McLellan

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

29 January 2018

 

 

 

 

 

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

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00215

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 4 December 2017 be confirmed.

Tim Lindley/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                     Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

 

4.1       Bromley Area

Sherryl Ladkin spoke to the Board regarding a problem with cooking odours in her neighbourhood. 

The Board advised Ms Ladkin that the issue of air odours comes under the jurisdiction of Environment Canterbury not the Christchurch City Council.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Ladkin for her presentation.

The Board acknowledged the issue that Ms Ladkin discussed with the Board of cooking odours.  The Board requested staff to forward to Ms Ladkin the contact details for the Environment Canterbury Councillors.

 

4.2       Rubbish Removal in Sumner and Taylors Mistake

Liza Sparrow, representing the Sumner Community Residents’ Association and Donna Henderson, representing Sumner Business Group, spoke to the Board about overflowing rubbish bins and rubbish removal in Sumner and Taylors Mistake and gave suggestions on how to alleviate some of the issues of overflowing bins.

 

The Chairperson thanked Ms Sparrow and Ms Henderson for their presentation.

 

The Board received advice from staff on the current frequency of rubbish bins emptying under the current contract.  The Board were advised that a smart rubbish bin was being trialled at Scarborough Park, and at some sites in New Brighton.

 

The Board requested staff advice on Sumner rubbish issues including:

·     Rationalisation of the streets and parks contracts for rubbish removal in Sumner and Taylors Mistake;

·     Proposed frequency of emptying rubbish bins taking into account the weather/temperature;

·     Proposed signage regarding littering and encouraging users to take rubbish home;

·     The installation of more rubbish bins, larger bins, smart bins and recycling bins.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

7.   Notice of Motion

 

Recommendation to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Accepts the Notice of Motion from Yani Johanson regarding Lower Heathcote River Landscape and Maintenance Plan.

2.         Agree to the development of a Lower Heathcote River Landscape and Maintenance Plan.

3.         Request staff prepare a draft plan with urgency for public engagement and consultation to be reported back to the Community Board by March 2018.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00216

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Accepts the Notice of Motion from Yani Johanson regarding the development of a Lower Heathcote River Master Plan.

2.         Agree to the development of a Lower Heathcote River Master Linear Plan.

3.         Request staff to report back to the Board as soon as possible regarding the maintenance from Ōpāwa Road to the Estuary and the process of landscaping around the Woolston Cut and Staunton Reserve post dredging.

Yani Johanson/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

Alexandra Davids left the meeting at 3:56 pm. Alexandra Davids returned to the meeting at 3.58 pm.

 

8.   Briefings

 

8.1       Central City Transport Projects

John O’Hagan, General Manager, Development and Annemarie Mora, General Manager Communications and Stakeholder Engagement - Otakaro Limited attended and updated the Board on the Central City transport projects.

 

 

The Board noted the information supplied during the Briefing.

 

9.   8 Holly Road, St Albans - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the north west side of Holly Road commencing at a point 44 metres north east of its intersection with Papanui Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the south east side of Holly Road commencing at a point 44 metres north east of its intersection with Papanui Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00217

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the north west side of Holly Road commencing at a point 44 metres north east of its intersection with Papanui Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres, between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the south east side of Holly Road commencing at a point 44 metres north east of its intersection with Papanui Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres, between 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

Deon Swiggs/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

10. 108 Stanmore Road, Linwood - Proposed Mobility Parking Space

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00218 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street and ending at a point 64 metres south of its intersection with Gloucester Street

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved  mobility parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with in accordance with Clause 6.4 (1A) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 subsection (b) on the east side of Stanmore Road, be restricted to 60 minutes, commencing at a point 38 metres south of southern kerb line of Gloucester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of seven metres.

4.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 45 metres south of its intersection with Gloucester Street and extending in a southerly direction and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

Deon Swiggs/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

11. Edmond Street, Woolston - Proposed Street Renaming

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00219 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the existing street name of Edmond Street in Woolston be changed to Edmonds Street.

2.         Approve that the street name plates be replaced accordingly.

Darrell Latham/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

12. Linwood-Central-Heathcote - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations and Bus Stop Line Marking Remediation

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00220 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

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

1.         Approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at the following locations:

a.         314 Gloucester Street,

b.         Gloucester Street, adjacent to 110 Stanmore Road,

c.         1008 Ferry Road,

d.         37 Aldwins Road, and

e.         105 Antigua Street.

2.         Approve the following bus stop parking restrictions remediation at an existing bus stop at 37 Aldwins Road (Attachment D):

a.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Aldwins Road commencing at a point 190 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres, be revoked.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the west side of Aldwins Road commencing at a point 190 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

c.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the west side of Aldwins Road commencing at a point 198 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the west side of Aldwins Road commencing at a point 212 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

13. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update for January 2018.

2.         Nominate two Board representatives to attend the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Zone Committee’s Community Waterway Workshops.

3.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00221

Part B

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the Area Update for January 2018.

2.         Nominate Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Tim Lindley to attend the Canterbury Water Management Strategy Zone Committee’s Community Waterway Workshops.

3.            Nominate Tim Lindley to represent the Board on the Summit Road – Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions Hearing Panel.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                          Carried

e

 

 

 

15. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00222

That the reports be received and considered at the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting on Monday, 29 January 2018.

Open Items

16.       Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Roimata Food Commons

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

16. Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Roimata Food Commons

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Decline the application for funding from Roimata Commons Trust for wages of the Project Manager for the Roimata Food Commons Project.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00223

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Refer the application to the Council’s Innovation and Sustainability Fund acknowledging that the licence to occupy, the landscape plan and the Memorandum of Understanding regarding maintenance between the Trust and the Parks Unit have not been completed.

Yani Johanson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

Brenda Lowe-Johnson requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.

 

Alexandra Davids left the meeting at 6:02pm.

14  Elected Members' Information Exchange

 

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    Board Area Projects Key Milestones – Discussion was held on the level/depth of information given to Board members when a project reaches a  key milestone.

·    Breakfast for Homeless Project – The Board were advised that there is a breakfast for the homelessness each Tuesday at Margaret Mahy Playground.

·    Estuary Trust – Discussion was held on items that the Trust has discussed recently including maintenance on the Estuary edge and the upcoming installation of the Rapanui-Shag Rock cycleway.

·    Ōpāwa Village Traffic Speed – the Board discussed the need for traffic calming measures within the Ōpāwa Village.

 

14.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

 

The Board requested information on the number of current electric vehicle charging stations and the programme of further installations of the stations.

 

14.2 Richmond Village

 

The Board discussed assisting retailers within the Richmond Village to establish a Business Association.

 

The Board requested staff to assist Sally Buck and Deon Swiggs to investigate  the potential for a Richmond Village Business Association.

 

14.3 Letter of Recognition

 

The Board acknowledged Joe’s Garage in Sumner for their initiative to have members of the public bring in a bucket of rubbish collected within Sumner in exchange for a free cup of coffee.

 

That the Board write a letter of recognition to Joes Garage in Sumner congratulating them on their initiative to have members of the public bring in a bucket of rubbish collected within Sumner to exchange for a free cup of coffee.

   

Meeting concluded at 6.29pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

Sally Buck

ChairpersoN

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/72760

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Fletcher Living

New Name for East Frame and update on Housing Projects

Linwood Community House

Linwood Community House Closure Advice

Ōtākaro  Limited

Central City Dog Park

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 14 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Fletcher Living East Frame Progress

16

b

Fletcher Living East Frame Progress Question and Answer Sheet

17

c

Linwood Community House - Closure Advice January 2018

19

d

Ōtākaro Limited - Central City Dog Park February 2017

20

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

8.        Staff Briefing

Reference:

18/114618

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Stage Dredging Update

Peter Christensen

Design Manager

Land Drainage and Stormwater

 

 

Ben Pasco

Project Manager

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

9.        147 Opawa Road, Opawa - Proposed No Stopping, P10 and P30 Restrictions

Reference:

17/1522147

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 new parking restrictions along Opawa Road, which consist of the introduction of one car length of no stopping restrictions (north east side), two lengths of P10 restrictions (north east side) and two lengths of P30 minute restrictions (south west side) and one car length of P10 restriction (south west side) in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident who has been concerned about local road safety.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve road safety and provide parking opportunities that correspond with the existing business activities 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 prohibited on the north east side of Opawa Road commencing at a point 11 metres south east of its intersection with Vincent Place and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 5 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 10 minutes on the north east side of Opawa Road commencing at a point 16 metres south east of its intersection with Vincent Place and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes on the south west side of Opawa Road commencing at a point 12 metres south east of its intersection with Hawford Road  and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

4.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 10 minutes on the south west side of Opawa Road commencing at a point 24 metres south east of its intersection with Hawford Road  and extending in a south easterly 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: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Provide no stopping, P10 and P30 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves safety for pedestrians using the Zebra crossing (due to the no stopping markings)

·     Provides high turnover parking for customers visiting the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the loss of one car length of parking space.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident approached the council to express safety concerns at this location. This was also on behalf of his child who attends Opawa School who is one of many schoolchildren that use the Zebra crossing at this location.

5.2       The concern was that vehicles sometimes park outside one of the 2 dairies extremely close to the crossing and sometimes extending over the crossing.  This results in the sightline between pedestrians and drivers from the south east being blocked, resulting in substantial risk to pedestrians, especially children.

5.3       Staff have investigated the site layout and local traffic conditions. In terms of crash history, between 2011 and 15 no recorded crashes have occurred at this location.

5.4       It is evident that there are yellow no stopping restrictions on 3 corners of the crossing, though are missing on the north east corner, outside one of the dairies.  It is evident that for any pedestrian using the crossing from the east side, a vehicle parked immediately to the south east block the view of traffic approaching from St Martins (south east), which is worsened further due to the road bend at the bridge.

5.5       It is the opinion of staff that vehicles should not be parked at this location, in the interest of safety and there are sufficient parking opportunities elsewhere.

5.6       There are some P10 restrictions on Vincent Place, which are one side of the dairy. Presently on Opawa Road, all parking spaces are unrestricted.  In addition on this side of Opawa Road, there are other on-street parking opportunities north of Vincent Place.

5.7       Staff consider that the dairy would attract no more than 2-3 customer cars at any one time.

5.8       Consequently no stopping restrictions are recommended for one car length south east of the crossing and introducing 2 P10 parking spaces, consistent with Vincent Place that should provide sufficient parking opportunities for customers.

5.9       The installation of the new restrictions at this location will improve safety and be a more appropriate provision for the local businesses.

6.   Option 1 – Provide the no stopping, P10 and P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Replace the existing unrestricted parking with one car length of no stopping and 2 car lengths of P10 parking on the south east side, together with introducing 2 car lengths of P30 and one car length of P10 restrictions on the south west side of Opawa Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at the 10 nearest properties. This initial consultation related to the no stopping and P10 restrictions.

6.5       One email of objection were received from the dairy owner at 147 who has requested that the parking is maintained after the Zebra crossing (i.e. exclude the no stopping). In response, the proposal with the no stopping added, will still provide 2 parking spaces and with a new P10 restriction to increase turnover, which is considered to be sufficient provision.

6.6       Three emails of support were received. One supporter was the owner of the other dairy on the west side. He has requested new restrictions within the parking bay outside the group of shops on the west side.

6.7       Staff subsequently spoke with the owners and operators at all of the businesses with frontages to this parking bay, i.e. the ‘west’ dairy, café, dress shop and accountancy. The ‘west’ dairy owner requested one P10 space with effect for all week, (as is consistent with the ‘east’ dairy), whereas a P30 restriction was requested by the other 3 businesses on that side, with effect for Monday to Friday only.

6.8       Consequently, the proposal has been amended to include these restrictions on the south west side of Opawa Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $1500 to provide new road markings together with installing six signs on 4 new posts and one on an existing power pole.

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

6.12    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.18    Implementation timeframe – approximately 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety for pedestrians using the Zebra crossing (due to the no stopping markings)

·   Provides increased turnover of parking at for customers using the other spaces, accessing the nearby businesses

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in the loss of one car length of parking space.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking on both sides.

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 improving safety at this location and changing the type of restrictions to correspond with the business requirements.

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    As the Zebra crossing is substandard, the road safety risks to pedestrians would continue.

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:

·   This maintains the risk of pedestrians using the Zebra crossing from the east side being unseen by northbound drivers.

·   Does not support the operational needs of the nearby business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

147 Opawa Rd site plan

28

b

147 Opawa Rd location plan

29

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

10.    Madras Street near Ely Street, Moa Place and Melrose Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1522155

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 provision of 3 separate sections of no stopping restrictions on the east side of Madras 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 requests from local residents who live on Melrose Street, Moa Place and Ely Street, who expressed similar safety concerns.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve the sight lines from drivers turning onto Madras Street.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Melrose Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Melrose Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 23 metres.

3.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Moa Place and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Moa Place and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

5.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Ely Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Madras Street commencing at its intersection with Ely Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 21 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 –  Provide 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 all drivers from the 3 side streets entering Madras St

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the loss of on-street spaces on Madras Street and displaces parking elsewhere.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local residents association expressed concerns about their line of sight whilst turning from the residential streets onto Madras Street. This applied to drivers on Melrose Street, Moa Place and Ely Street.

5.2       Staff visited the site to evaluate the problem.  It was apparent that the problem stems from the fact that Madras Street functions as a multi-lane one way street. The sight line to drivers travelling north on Madras Street on its western side is adequate. However, this is more constrained towards the drivers on Madras Street who use the right hand lanes.

5.3       As is typical on wide one way streets, speeds are relatively high for an urban street and lane changes frequently occur, resulting in increased risks to drivers from the side roads  identifying an appropriate gap on Madras Street.

5.4       Their line of sight is partially blocked by parked vehicles on the east side of Madras Street. There are some no stopping restrictions already in effect, which enables a sight line, though staff consider that this is insufficient. Consequently, the no stopping restrictions are proposed to be extended.

5.5       The additional restrictions will affect approximately 5 parking spaces.  Site investigations indicated the nearby properties have sufficient off-street parking and there are other on-street parking opportunities nearby.

5.6       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve the safety at the 3 intersections by improving sight lines for drivers on the side roads.


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide no stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the east side Madras Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners on the east side Madras Street between Melrose Street and south of Ely Street (no.366). 

6.5       No letters of objection or request for amendment were received.

6.6       Staff consider this as an indication that the parked vehicles are likely to be office workers who do not live in the immediate area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $500 to provide road markings.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.16    Implementation timeframe – approximately 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the sight lines for all drivers from the 3 side streets entering Madras St

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in the loss of on-street spaces on Madras Street and displaces parking elsewhere.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing no stopping restrictions to their current extent

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 changing the type of restrictions to correspond with the requirements or local residents

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 operational needs of the nearby residents.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Madras St east location plan

36

b

Madras St east NSRs site plan

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

11.    420 St Asaph Street, Phillipstown - Proposed Removal of P5 Loading Zone and new No Stopping Restrictions.

Reference:

17/1522159

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 removal of a 5 minute Loading Zone on the south side of St Asaph Street and replacement with No Stopping Restrictions 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 based on local site investigations.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of St Asaph St commencing at a point 122 metres west of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of St Asaph Street commencing at a point 122 metres west of its intersection with Phillips Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Remove the P5 Loading Zone and replace with no stopping (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Assists bus drivers approaching the stop to manoeuvre efficiently and locate the bus parallel to the kerb

·     Assists mobility impaired passengers to access the bus or disembark, since the vehicle is more likely to be positioned close to the kerb.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       During the course of a site visit for another proposal, staff identified the loading zone at this location. It was apparent from multiple visits that the loading zone was only used by the occasional car and did not appear to be of value to the nearby businesses.

5.2       Consequently the businesses on both sides of this area were approached informally, to enquire as to whether a loading zone was necessary. Based on staff discussions with the occupier at no. 420 it was evident that the previous operator regularly received delivery of construction materials. The building is currently subject to a long term lease by the Kiwi Family Trust who do not require on-street loading operations.

5.3       The other neighbouring businesses indicated that all their loading operations take place within their site, off-street. 

5.4       The loading zone is adjacent to an existing bus stop used by the 80 service. The marked bay does not have a marked ‘lead in’, so staff recommend that the loading bay is converted to a no stopping  restriction, to assist approaching buses as they manoeuvre into the bus stop bay to position themselves parallel to the kerb.

5.5       Consequently, staff are recommending that the existing loading zone is removed and replaced with no stopping restrictions.

5.6       The removal of the Loading Zone at this location will result in more efficient use of the street space and assist buses to operate efficiently. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Remove the P5 Loading Zone and provide no stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Remove the existing P5 loading zone and replace with no stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at the 10 nearest properties on St Asaph Street.

6.5       No letters of objection or request for 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 remove the road markings, signs and posts and mark no stopping 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 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Assists bus drivers approaching the stop to manoeuvre efficiently and locate the bus parallel to the kerb

·   Assist mobility impaired passengers, since the vehicle is more likely to be positioned closer to the kerb.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing Loading Zone

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 would not correspond with the needs of local business requirements.

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 operational needs of the nearby business.

·   Does not assist access by bus services

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

420 St Asaph St LZ removal location plan

44

b

420 St Asaph St LZ removal site plan

45

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

12.    Springfield Road, St Albans - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

18/25159

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 provision of P120 parking restrictions on two sections of Springfield Road in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident situated on Springfield Road.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide short stay parking opportunities for visitors and retain overnight long stay parking for residents.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the west side of Springfield Road commencing at a point 14 metres north of its intersection with Derby Street extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the south east side of Springfield Road commencing at a point 5 metres north east of its intersection with Derby Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 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 – Provide P120 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for visitors to local residents

·     Provides on-street opportunities for deliveries to local residents

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident on Springfield Road expressed concern that there was significant pressure for on-street parking at this location. For the majority of the day, the street is claimed to be parked by workers and that there are few opportunities for visitors to park here during a typical working day.

5.2       Springfield Road is located within a short walking distance from various areas of employment on Bealey Avenue and the north side of Christchurch CBD. At present the street has unrestricted parking on both sides, except at its northern and southern intersections, with no stopping restrictions located close to Durham Street north and Bealey Avenue. 

5.3       Staff visited the site at different times of the day and agree with the intensity of parking demands. The majority of the local properties do have off-street parking, though typically have one or two parking spaces, thus requiring visitors to park elsewhere.

5.4       Consequently a request for daytime short stay opportunities has been made. The problem has been confirmed to be between Monday and Friday only, which suggests that the main demands are by daytime office workers.

5.5       In accordance with the local request, the proposal restricts the equivalent of six parking spaces. These have been located approximately centrally along the street and divided into two discrete sections on opposite sides, for the convenience of all the residents on Springfield Road.

5.6       The installation of the 120 minute restrictions at this location will provide short stay opportunities and retain longer stay parking between 6pm and 8am, together with unrestricted parking during weekends and public holidays. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide P120 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide P120 restrictions on the east side of part of Holly Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to all tenants and property owners along the whole length of Springfield Road.

6.5       Three emails in support were received and none opposing or requesting amendment.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $700 to provide 4 signs and sign posts.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.15    Implementation timeframe – approximately 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides increased parking opportunity for visitors to local properties

·   Provides opportunities for deliveries to residents properties

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in long stay parking occurring  elsewhere

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 introducing short stay restrictions matching the requirements of local residents.

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 operational needs of local residents.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Springfield Rd P120 site plan

52

b

Springfield Rd P120 location plan

53

 

 

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

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

13.    Redcliffs School Site - Retention of Assets for New Park

Reference:

17/1310661

Contact:

Luke Rees-Thomas

Luke.reesthomas@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8504

 

 

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 recommend to the Chief Executive which assets on the current Redcliffs school site be retained for the new Redcliffs Park layout.

1.2       The Chief Executive has been delegated the authority to negotiate and enter into such documentation as she considers necessary to implement the proposed land swap.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council Resolution dated 7 September 2017, in particular Item 3 below and to provide advice to the Board as requested in subsequent resolutions below.

1.4       A decision and response is now required to the Ministry’s offer to retain existing assets on the site.

“23.       Hearings Panel's Recommendations to the Council on the Redcliffs Park and Redcliffs School Proposed Land Swap

Council Resolved CNCL/2017/00232

That the Council:

Approve the following:

a.         The sale of two parcels of Council owned land at Redcliffs Park to the Crown at a current market value as assessed by an independent registered valuer appointed by the Council described as:

i.              1,075 m2 Lot 2 Deposited Plan 47479 CB27F/183

ii.             7,692 m2 Lot 3 Deposited Plan 47479 CB27F/184

b.         The cancellation of the vesting (in the Council) of the Crown owned land classified as Recreation Reserve at Redcliffs Park described as Reserve 4601 CB616/39 being 1.0304ha in area and to this land being set apart for a school.

c.         Appointment by the Crown to control and manage the Crown owned land at Redcliffs School described as follows as Recreation Reserve under Section 28 of the Reserves Act 1977 for a new park:

i.              4,223m2 Section 1 Survey Office Plan 334406 CFR156004

ii.             4,047m2 Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan 1228 CB190/67

iii.            3,384m2 Lot 1 Deposited Plan 7624 CB372/72

iv.           4,957m2 Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 1228 CB495/17

v.            1,821m2 Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan 1228 Gazette 1924 p2596

2.         Request and encourage the Ministry of Education to acknowledge and consider the project in the Main Road Master Plan relating to view shafts and access between Main Road near Moa Bone Cave and the Coastal Pathway and Estuary and to consider ways that this project can inform their planning for the new school site.

3.         Note the Ministry of Education’s commitment to remove the buildings and hardstand and then make good the demolition area to grass or similar, and to build a fence at the new park site. Council requests Council staff and the Community Board to consider which facilities and landscaping might usefully be retained as Council assets on the new park site, and to negotiate the retention of these items with the Ministry of Education.

4.         Noting the level of service associated to the existing Redcliffs Park and the community’s desire to retain this, request Council staff to negotiate a fair and reasonable contribution (accounting for the current condition and book value of the current assets) from the Ministry of Education in respect to retaining that level of service on the new park site.

5.         Acknowledging the loss of waterfront amenity at the existing park site, allocate the proceeds from the sale of the fee simple land to improve recreational amenity on the new park site and surrounding area.

6.         Require that all three elements of the transaction referred to in paragraph 1 above proceed.

7.         Request Council staff to assess the new Redcliffs School site for inclusion in the priority list for a school speed zone.

8.         Note the Ministry of Education’s willingness to contribute towards new traffic management and pedestrian safety systems that may be required.

9.         Request that Council staff and the Ministry of Education work together to achieve continuity of service and minimal disruption to users of the park.

10.       Delegate to the Chief Executive the authority to negotiate and enter into such documentation as she considers necessary to implement the above arrangements.”

1.5       A subsequent resolution was passed by the Community Board on 4 September 2017:

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00127

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board request:

1.         That a letter be written to Ministry of Education regarding rebuilding toilets that are accessible to the public at the new Redcliffs School site.

2.         Staff advice on the provision of public toilets on the former Redcliffs school site.

1.6       A subsequent resolution was passed by the Community Board on 18 October 2017:

Community Board resolution LCHB/2017/00172

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

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

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

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

c.         The layout and composition of new sports fields.

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

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy (SEP), taking into consideration (amongst other things) the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the level of community interest already apparent for the issue, possible environmental, social and cultural impacts, possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision, and whether the impact of the decision can be reversed.

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.         In response to the Ministry of Education’s offer, recommend to the Council’s Chief Executive, the following assets on the current Redcliffs School Site be retained for use within the new Redcliffs Park:

a.         The building located in the southern corner of the site, known as ‘Blocks 20, 21 & 22’

b.         The car park

c.         The children’s playground, sand pit, shade sails and decking

d.         Garden adjacent to the car park and trees

e.         In-built furniture

f.          Sealed path to playground

g.         Boundary fencing

h.         Services

2.         Instruct staff to investigate ‘Heritage Option 3’, outlined within Section 5.22, being interpretation signage and/or artwork for the school buildings which hold heritage significance.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.6 Achieve a cost efficient level of service for recreation and sport facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Retain selected assets and building in southern corner (preferred)

·     Option 2 – Retain selected assets, no buildings

·     Option 3 – Retain selected assets and multiple buildings

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The Ministry of Education will clear the majority of the site. This will provide space for the Council to deliver a similar level of service to the current Redcliffs Park including replacement sports fields and other potential future recreation facilities.

·     Play opportunities will be replaced at the new site and good car parking provided.

·     The Council will not be required to repair and maintain the buildings being demolished by the Ministry.

·     There is an opportunity for Council to retain the building located in the southern corner, which is modern, largely undamaged and suitable for community use.

·     The existing car park, playground, furniture and trees are all in workable locations for the new park layout.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Certain features must be built on the new park site to meet the level of service provided at the previous site e.g. new public toilets.

·     The building in the southern corner is not a facility that the Council has planned and budgeted for and is additional to the Council’s anticipated level of provision of community facilities. There will be initial establishment costs (repair, refurbishment) and ongoing operational costs associated with the building.

·     Potential uses and management arrangements for the building are yet to be determined.

·     Loss of heritage values associated with buildings to be demolished.

 

5.   Context/Background

Redcliffs School – Redcliffs Park ‘Land Swap’

5.1       On 7 September 2017 the Council resolved to proceed with a series of property transactions, giving effect to a ‘swap’ of land between the Council and Ministry of Education. Redcliffs School is to be rebuilt on the current Redcliffs Park site and a new park developed on the existing School site.

5.2       The Council decision followed a public consultation and hearings process, which compiled the views of the local community. This process determined a majority of the public to be in favour of the ‘land swap’ proceeding.

5.3       The property transactions are now being worked through contemporaneously and the Ministry are preparing a plan to clear the current School site.

Decision Required – Retention of Assets at Current School Site

5.4       Section 3 of the Council resolution refers to an offer from the Ministry to exclude assets from the demolition schedule, should the Council wish to retain them for use within the new park.

5.5       The resolution instructs staff and the Community Board to consider what assets (if any) be retained for the new Redcliffs park site. A formal response may then be submitted to the Ministry of Education and be incorporated into the impending demolition scope.

5.6       The Ministry wish to progress demolition of the site as soon as possible.

Level of Service Transition

5.7       The Council resolution reflected the community’s desire to retain the same level of service at the new Redcliffs Park as was provided at the original site.

5.8       In order to achieve the same level of service at the new Redcliffs Park, several assets can be retained and upgraded (paths, playgrounds, car park). Other assets need to be created, such as new sports fields and public toilets.

5.9       A comparison of facilities and features between the old and new park sites is as follows:

Existing at Redcliffs Park

Existing at Redcliffs School

Retain or Remove

Additional notes

Community building used by table tennis pre EQ, currently damaged and closed

Multiple buildings

Retain building in southern corner, demolish other buildings

 

Public toilet building with 2 separate toilets

Nil

N/A

Replace capacity from former park at new site

Furniture - 4 seats, 2 bins, signage, bollards, gate, light pole

Furniture – 2 benches at pedestrian entrance near playground, and some around poplar trees by playground

Retain

Add bollards at driveway/ car park to prevent vehicle access, add park signage

Gardens

Gardens

Retain gardens in accordance with draft landscape plan (to be prepared)

Any additional gardens will be considered in landscape plan

Trees

Trees

Retain good quality trees as much as possible in accordance with draft landscape plan (to be prepared)

Any additional trees or removals will be considered in landscape plan

1 junior and 1 intermediate football field, drained and irrigated

Grass area

Retain and extend

Relevel and replace field capacity from former park at new site

Unmarked vehicle carpark

24 vehicle carpark

Retain

 

Paths, tracks, access ways

Asphalt path to playground

Retain

 

Nil

Asphalt hard surface driveway and sports area, in poor condition

Remove

 

Playground - tyre swing, 3 swings, see saw and modular structure, climbing net, under surfacing

Playco Modular structure

Retain

Refurbish existing playground, relocate climbing net to new site, add swings and see saw, renew safety surfacing

Nil

Sand pit

Retain

Possibly repurpose as required

Nil

Shade sails and decking

Retain

Refurbish as required

Fence – post and cable along road boundary

Fence – 1.5m high steel along road boundary

Retain

 

Backflow preventer and irrigation

Unknown

Retain as required

As required

5.10    A preliminary layout for the new park site was included within the public consultation process. This plan anticipated demolition of the majority of buildings in order to allow the forming of two new sports fields in the centre of the site.

Proposal to retain Community Use Building

5.11    The building located in the southern corner (known to the Ministry as Blocks 20, 21 & 22) has been identified as a potential community space. The building is modern, largely undamaged and includes functioning spaces / toilets. The building’s existing location will not constrict new park layout options.

5.12    The retention of this building is seen as a replacement of the community buildings from the current Redcliffs Park, therefore providing a similar level of service.

5.13    The building has minor cosmetic damage and work required to the piles of the structure.

5.14    If additional current school buildings are to be retained, the Council would be in a position of attempting to exceed the level of service from the current Redcliffs Park. The Council would also incur substantial costs to repair and maintain the assets over their lifespans. These costs have not been quantified by Council staff, nor budgeted for.

 

Block

Year of Design

Construction

Type

Current

NBS %

Structural Assessment & Damage

Fit to occupy

20

2000

Light timber

 frame

35%

Damage to some of the portal frame gang-nail connections was observed.

Minor cosmetic damage to one of the timber piles was observed which is not structurally significant. However, no connection of the bearer to pile was obvious.

No significant structural damage was observed.

Yes

21

2003

Light timber

frame

35%

No significant structural damage

Yes

22

2006

Light timber

frame

35%

No significant structural damage

Yes

Community Building Needs

5.15    The Community Board requested staff advice on how the Redcliffs Residents’ Association will be included in discussions.

5.16    Members of the Residents Association attended a site visit with Community Board members, Council and Ministry of Education staff, to discuss what assets were to be retained. They presented a paper suggesting retention of all buildings on the former school site for use as; a community function centre, a meeting room, Sumner Silver Band (currently operating from Redcliffs Bowling Club), Table Tennis Club (currently operating from St Augustine’s Anglican Church, 5 Cracroft Tce), Tai Chi and Yoga (other local venues available), Pottery Club (currently operating from the former Phillipstown School site), and Martial Arts (currently operating from the Mt Pleasant Community Centre).

5.17    Council staff have contacted all these groups and all indicated they were happy with their new premises and none of them expressed a desire to relocate back to the former school site.

5.18    Council-lead community research undertaken for the Redcliffs Community Facility identified a number of churches, organisations and clubs that own venues that can be hired by individuals and groups in the community. Five facilities were described. Some concern was expressed by participants in the research about potential oversaturation of facilities in such a small community, especially since none of the existing facilities are currently used to capacity.

5.19    Ferrymead Bays Football Club are the main sports users of Redcliffs Park and are likely to continue to be the main users of the new park. While they would appreciate additional sports facilities such as senior fields and changing rooms at the new park, simply replacing existing fields and toilets would be adequate for their needs. They are not seeking clubrooms on the site.

Heritage Values

5.20    Heritage Status

The buildings and site at Redcliffs School currently have no heritage status or protection in the Christchurch District Plan or on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga List.

5.21    Heritage Significance

The buildings at Redcliffs School have not been fully researched and assessed for their heritage significance. However, initial documentary research and a site visit by Council’s Heritage Advisor on 15 November 2017 indicates that some of the buildings have some heritage significance – the 1921 hall/with adjoining 1907-1928 classroom block (Attachment A, Photographs 1 and 2); the 1940s open air classroom block (Attachment A – photograph 3) and the former dental school clinic (Attachment A, photograph 4) of the same period.

These buildings are of historical, social, cultural, architectural, aesthetic, craftsmanship and contextual value for their history of development and educational and community use along with their design, construction and materials and as a landmark.  Of particular note, the 1921 hall was built as classrooms and a community hall with joint funding from the school and community – this was a New Zealand first.  See Attachment B for further discussion on the heritage values of these buildings.

 

5.22    Heritage Options

 Option

Description

Discussion

Impact on Heritage

Option 1

Retention of some or all three buildings on site with heritage value

 

The 1921 hall building has the highest heritage value. The hall could be preserved with or without its 1907-1928 wing. 

 

Relocation within the site would be an acceptable heritage outcome.  

·    Retention of historical, social, cultural, architectural, aesthetic, craftsmanship and contextual values for the District and local community.

 

·    Tangible reminder of the former school on the site.

 

·    The buildings provide an opportunity for the community to remember, connect with their past, and pass stories down to present and future generations. 

 

·    The retention of heritage places and values in communities can contribute to community identity, sense of place and wellbeing. [1]

 

·    Would provide continuity of the physical environment for a community which has experienced significant change as a result of the earthquakes.

 

·    Alignment with the Strong Communities outcome – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, cultural, heritage and sport’, and the Heritage Protection Activity Management Plan (1 July 2017) Level of Service 1.4.3 Provide advice and advocacy on heritage conservation principles and priorities for the District’s historic heritage, both internally and externallyResults - Best practice conservation methodology and heritage asset management practices are implemented for all Council-owned heritage assets. 

 

Option 2

Retention off-site

 

A local community member or organisation (e.g. Ferrymead Historic Park) may be willing to relocate the buildings off the site. 

·    Reduction of historical, social, cultural and landmark heritage values of the buildings due to them being removed from their historical context.

 

·    Buildings remain in the local area and contribute to heritage values of the area.

 

·    The retention of heritage places and values in communities can contribute to community identity, sense of place and wellbeing.

 

·    Architectural and craftsmanship values remain.

Option 3

Interpretation on site

Interpretation of the history of the site and the buildings is best practice for all of the other options.

 

The community (including past and present students and teachers) could be involved in shaping the design and content of the interpretation which could be interpretation panels or an artwork. 

·    The history of the buildings and the school on its former site are told by the present generation and handed down to future generations. 

 

·    Opportunity provided to the community to remember, connect with their past, and pass stories down to present and future generations. 

 

·    Knowledge, understanding and celebration of heritage values in communities can contribute to community identity, sense of place and wellbeing.

 

·    Intangible values are expressed.

Option 4

Demolition

Demolition of all three buildings

·    Total loss of heritage values embodied in the buildings for the District and community.

 

·    No tangible reminders of the early school history will remain in the area.

 

·    Removal of features which can contribute to community identity, sense of place and wellbeing.

 

·    Lack of continuity of the physical environment for a community which has experienced significant change as a result of the earthquakes.

 

·    Lack of alignment with the Strong Communities outcome – ‘celebration of our identity through arts, cultural, heritage and sport’ and Heritage Protection Activity Management Plan (1 July 2017) Level of Service 1.4.3. 

5.23    Staff have revised possible field layouts for the new park site. Two possible options are attached (Attachments C and D). Option A illustrates a possible field layout that requires demolition or moving of the school hall and retains two significant trees. Option B illustrates a possible field layout that accommodates retention of the school hall but requires removal of two significant trees.

5.24    A full landscape plan will be prepared in consultation with the community (including the Redcliffs Residents Association) once asset retention is decided. This will be reported to the Community Board for approval.

Public toilets

5.25    The Community Board requested advice on the provision of public toilets on the former Redcliffs school site. It is proposed that new toilets be built on the new site in accordance with the draft landscape plan.

Funding of new Park Assets

5.26    The Community Board sought staff advice on the funding budget (including unallocated funding that was to be used on the pavilion on the current Redcliffs Park) for development of the new Redcliffs Park and whether unallocated funding can be reallocated to provide upgraded community facilities on the new Redcliffs Park.

5.27    The funding that had been identified for repair of the Redcliffs Park Pavilion has been reallocated to other earthquake repair work and is not available for the Redcliffs School site.

5.28    On 7 September 2017, the Council resolved (see Item 5 within Section 1.3) to allocate the proceeds from the sale of the (current) Redcliffs Park land, to improve recreational amenity on the new park site and surrounding area. These funds are expected to total $790,000.

6.   Option 1 - Retain selected assets and building in southern corner (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The following assets to be retained:

6.1.1   Furniture, gardens, trees, car park, path to playground, children’s playground, sand pit and shade sails, boundary fencing, and services on the current School site.

6.2       The following building to be retained;

6.2.1   The building in the southern corner.

6.3       This option can be visualised as shown in Attachment C (Layout Option A).

6.4       The retention of these assets will allow the Council to transfer the level of service from the current Redcliffs Park to the School site.

6.5       This option includes potential for Council to recognise the building heritage significance in a manner as suggested in Section 5.23, being interpretation signage and/or artwork.

6.6       All other assets to be demolished by the Ministry of Education.

Significance

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

6.8       Public consultation was completed during 2017 with regards to the land swap transactions. The final landscape plan will also follow a standard community consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.10    The local community are specifically affected by this option due to the revised location of the new park. Their views were sought during the public consultation process in 2017, with the majority requesting for the level of service to be retained.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – Building repair costs, park establishment costs

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Asset maintenance costs

6.14    Funding source – A contribution from the Ministry, proceeds from the sale of Park land and operational budgets

Legal Implications

6.15    Nil

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    There is a risk that repair and maintenance costs for the retained assets could exceed initial scopes once the Council takes ownership. This may result in additional funding required.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - Once a decision has been made, the Ministry of Education can commence demolition of the balance assets.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – Site demolitions are subject to the Ministry tendering and awarding a contract.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Ministry of Education will clear the majority of the site. This will provide space for the Council to deliver a similar level of service to the current Redcliffs Park including new sports fields and other potential future recreation facilities.

·   Play opportunities will be replaced at the new site and good car parking provided.

·   The Council will not be required to repair and maintain the buildings being demolished by the Ministry.

·   There is an opportunity for Council to retain the building located in the southern corner, which is modern, largely undamaged and suitable for community use.

·   The existing car park, playground, furniture and mature trees are all in workable locations for the new park layout.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Certain features must be built on the new park site to meet the level of service provided at the previous site e.g. new public toilets.

·   The building in the southern corner is not a facility that the Council has planned and budgeted for and is additional to the Council’s anticipated level of provision of community facilities. There will be initial establishment costs (repair, refurbishment) and ongoing operational costs associated with the building.

·   Potential uses and management arrangements for the building are yet to be determined.

·   Loss of heritage values associated with buildings to be demolished.

7.   Option 2 - Retain selected assets, no buildings

Option Description

7.1       The following assets to be retained:

7.1.1   Furniture, gardens, trees, car park, path to playground, children’s playground, sand pit and shade sails, boundary fencing, and services on the current School site.

7.2       This option can be applied in both draft plans included in Attachments C & D (Layout Options A & B). However Option A is preferable in order to retain the 2 large trees.

7.3       All buildings on site to be demolished by the Ministry of Education.

7.4       This option includes potential for Council to recognise the building heritage significance in a manner as suggested in Section 5.23, being interpretation signage and/or artwork.

Significance

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

7.6       Public consultation was completed during 2017 with regards to the land swap transactions. The final landscape plan will also follow a standard community consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       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

7.8       The local community are specifically affected by this option due to the revised location of the new park. Their views were sought during the public consultation process in 2017, with the majority requesting for the level of service to be retained.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation – Park establishment costs

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Asset maintenance costs

7.12    Funding source – A contribution from the Ministry, proceeds from the sale of Park land and operational budgets

Legal Implications

7.13    Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    There is a risk that repair and maintenance costs for the retained assets could exceed initial scopes once the Council takes ownership. This may result in additional funding required.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Once a decision has been made by the Board, the Ministry of Education can commence demolition of the balance assets.

7.16    Implementation timeframe – Site demolitions are subject to the Ministry tendering and awarding a contract.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     The Ministry of Education will clear the majority of the site. This will provide space for the Council to deliver a similar level of service to the current Redcliffs Park.

·     The cleared space will allow for the installation of new sports fields and other potential recreation facilities to replace opportunities lost at Redcliffs Park.

·     The Council will not be required to repair and maintain the buildings being demolished by the Ministry.

·     The existing car park, playground and trees are all in workable locations for the new park layout and can be retained.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An opportunity is lost in retaining the building known as ‘Block 20, 21 & 22’, this building is largely undamaged and could be utilised for community activities.

·     Loss of heritage values associated with buildings to be demolished.

8.   Option 3 - Retain selected assets and multiple buildings

Option Description

8.1       The following assets to be retained:

8.1.1   Furniture, gardens, trees, car park, path to playground, children’s playground, sand pit and shade sails, boundary fencing, and services on the current School site.

8.2       The following buildings also to be retained;

8.2.1   The building in the southern corner.

8.2.2   The hall building (original portion that possesses heritage significance).

8.3       This option can be visualised as shown in Attachment D (Layout Option B).

8.4       All other assets to be demolished by the Ministry of Education.

Significance

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

8.6       Public consultation was completed during 2017 with regards to the land swap transactions. The final landscape plan will also follow a standard community consultation process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.7       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

8.8       The local community are specifically affected by this option due to the revised location of the new park. Their views were sought during the public consultation process in 2017, with the majority requesting for the level of service to be retained.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation – Substantial building repair and refurbishment costs, park establishment and services.

8.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Asset management and maintenance costs.

8.12    Funding source – There is no budget allocated.

Legal Implications

8.13    Nil.

Risks and Mitigations

8.14    There is a risk that the retention of all school buildings will incur substantial repair and ongoing maintenance costs. This may result in additional costs for the rate payer and reduced levels of services at other sites in order to balance park budgets.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies - Once a decision has been made by the Board, the Ministry of Education can commence demolition of the balance assets in early 2018.

8.16    Implementation timeframe – Site demolitions are subject to the Ministry tendering and awarding a contract.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     The Ministry of Education will clear the balance of the site.

·     The existing car park and playground are all in workable locations for the new park layout and can be retained.

·     There is an opportunity for Council to retain the building located in the southern corner, which is modern, largely undamaged and suitable for community use.

·     Heritage value of the existing hall building is retained.

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The new park layout is somewhat constrained by the retention of a building in the centre of the site and mature tree removal is required.

·     The Hall will require modification in order to be accommodated along with the new sports fields.

·     There is desire from a local group to retain all existing buildings for community use. However the repair, ongoing operation and maintenance costs may not have been fully appreciated.

·     There is already a sufficient supply of community use space available in the area.

·     The Council would need to fund the repair and ongoing operation and maintenance of the school buildings.

·     Additional community buildings may impact on usage of nearby existing community facilities.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Heritage Building Photographs

71

b

Heritage Building Significance

73

c

New Redcliffs Park Layout - Option A

74

d

New Redcliffs Park Layout - Option B

75

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Kelly Hansen - Team Leader Asset Planning & Management Parks

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Paul McKeefry - Community Facilities Specialist

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

14.    22 Bridle Path Road - Proposed Road Names

Reference:

18/109991

Contact:

Paul Lowe

paul.lowe@ccc.govt.nz

941 6481

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

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

1.3       This report relates to the subdivision at 22 Bridle Path Road

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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.         Approve the 22 Bridle Path Road (RMA/2016/1453) right-of-way name

a.         Reynard Lane

 

 

4.   Background

4.1       Introduction

4.1.1   The road naming request has been submitted by the developer of the subdivision at 22 Bridle Path Road (RMA/2016/1453).

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

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

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

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

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

4.1.7   The request has been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which are summarised below.

4.2       22 Bridle Path Road

4.2.1   Road names have been requested by Bridle Path Estates Ltd for one right-of- way name at 22 Bridle Path Road.

4.2.2   The names in order of preference, are:

·     Reynard Lane – Fox and Associates are developing this subdivision. Reynard is the word in French Literature for Fox. The design and development of sections across the Port Hills is a niche area in which Fox and Associates has specialised in over the last 45 years.

·     Doru Lane - Doru Hozias is a highly competent and helpful subdivisions engineering officer at the Council.

4.2.3   Note: In regards to ‘Doru Lane’ the Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy dated 2 November 1993 discourages person names to be used unless the name has an historical connection with the property being subdivided, or that of a well know local identity or prominent Cantabrian, or New Zealander. While Land Information New Zealand has advised the name is acceptable, we do not consider that person concerned is prominent or has a sufficient connection with the locality and/or site.

4.2.4   Note: Foxys Way was also a proposed alternative option however Land Information New Zealand has advised that this to too similar to Fox Lane with regards to spelling, pronunciation and in this case proximity. <enter text>

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

RMA 2016 1453 Plan Bridle Path Road

80

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Laura Braddick - Planning Technician

Paul Lowe - Team Leader Planning

Approved By

John Gibson - Head of Resource Consents

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

15.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund: Christchurch Boys High School

Reference:

18/69551

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

1.2       There is currently $5,100 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Christchurch Boys High School to support Oliver Lewis of Horotane Valley and Clayden Paranihi of St Albans compete in the World Schools Rugby Festival in South Africa from 2 to 7 April 2018.

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:

Approves a grant of $1,000 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Christchurch Boys High School to support Oliver Lewis and Clayden Paranihi to compete in the World Schools Rugby Festival in South Africa from 2 to 7 April 2018. 

 

 

2.   Applicant  – Christchurch Boys' High School

2.1       Christchurch Boys' High School are seeking funding support to send 20 players from their 1st XV Rugby team to compete in the World Schools Rugby Festival in South Africa from 2 to 7 April 2018. 

2.2       Two of these players reside in the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board area:

·   Oliver Lewis, aged 15 years from Horotane Valley; and

·   Clayden Paranihi, aged 15 years from St Albans.

 

2.3       The festival is a prestigious event being held at Paarl High School, South Africa and the top 20 rugby teams from around the world, including four from New Zealand, have been invited to compete as part of the 150th anniversary celebrations. 

2.4       The players will not only experience top level rugby but will also benefit from the cultural experience of being billeted and meeting a wide range of people from different backgrounds.  It will be a fantastic opportunity for the players to experience a rich and culturally diverse part of South Africa.

2.5       Oliver is one of the younger players selected for the tour to South Africa and in 2016 was the CBHS Junior Rugby Player of the Year. He enjoys studying geography and his best subject is English. As well as being a keen rugby player Oliver plays cricket in the CBHS 1st XI. He supports the community by helping at the Heathcote Cricket Club on Friday nights and coaching children with cricket skills.

2.6       Clayden’s favourite school subject is Te Reo Māori and he excels in Physical Education classes. In 2017 he was the CBHS Junior Rugby Player of the Year, a member of the CBHS Senior Team of the Year and also a member of the CBHS Junior Rugby Team of the Year (Winner of the U15A National Secondary Schools Title).

2.7       Clayden is a community volunteer at Rehua Marae for the Māori New Year Festival and is a Junior Sevens coach for Linwood Rugby Club. He helped as a volunteer for the Ōtautahi Māori Women’s Welfare League - Caring for the kaumātua and manuhiri (elders and visitors).  Clayden is one of the younger players travelling to South Africa and will be a Year 12 student in 2018.

2.8       The team has eight fundraising activities scheduled, which the school believes is very important for the players to truly appreciate and earn their passage.  The school are also actively seeking sponsorship for their clothing costs for the trip.

2.9       The cost for each athlete is broken down as follows:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$2,700

Insurance

$250

Accommodation

$300

Food

$800

Coach

$250

Uniforms

$500

Activities and Miscellaneous

$450

                                                                                                 Total

$5,250

 

2.10    This is the first time the applicants have applied for funding from the Youth Development Fund.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

16.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's Youth Development Fund - Boris Van Bruchem

Reference:

18/92542

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

1.2       There is currently $5,100 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated as a result of an application being received.

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 $500 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Boris Pierre Van Bruchem towards attendance at the U19 Korfball World Cup in the Netherlands.

 

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Boris Pierre Van Bruchem

4.1       Boris is a 19 year old from Richmond.  He has been selected to represent New Zealand at the Under 19 Korfball World Cup in the Netherlands from 22 March to 7th April 2018.

4.2       Korfball is a mixed team sport, best described as fusion of basketball and netball.  It is predominately played in Europe, originating in Holland, but is being developed in New Zealand, especially in schools. The tournament spans Easter weekend, having two pools which play against each other and then a finals day.  This will be the second time New Zealand competes in the World Cup. Boris was also in the team when New Zealand competed for the first time in 2015.

4.3       Boris is one of the most experienced players in the team and is a natural leader for the sport. Having competed in 2015, this is a great opportunity for Boris to experience high level sport in an international tournament and further develop his ability and experience as both a player and a leader.  Participating in this tournament will mean Korfball continues to grow and gain popularity in New Zealand. Boris will also help with school tournaments and teach the children what he has learnt overseas. 

4.4       The team are fundraising with sausage sizzles, event marshalling, wine sales, beach korfball competitions, and selling hangi tickets.

4.5       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Boris Van Bruchem to represent New Zealand at the Under 19 Korfball World Cup in the Netherlands from 22 March to 7th April 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

3,427

Meals

151

Host gift for billet family

11

Tournament fee

11

Transport

75

Team uniform

290

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$3,965

 

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

17.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - February 2018

Reference:

18/11262

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

This report provides information on initiatives and issues current within the Community Board area, to provide the Board with a strategic overview and inform sound decision making.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Community Board Area Report for February 2018.

2.         Appoint one or more members of the Community Board to appear and be heard under section 204(2)(b) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, for the purpose of providing community input at the hearing of 375 Ferry Road Sale and Supply of Alcohol Off Licence Application.

3.         Appoint up to two Community Board representatives to the Ōpāwa Library Project Working Group.

4.         Consider recommending that the Council include funding in the Long Term Plan to cover the implementation of an improved climate control system in Risingholme Hall and Homestead.

5.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

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

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Upcoming Board Meeting Venue – The Board meeting to be held on 14 March 2018 will be held at Avebury House, 9 Evelyn Cousins Avenue, Richmond commencing at 10am.

3.1.2   375 Ferry Road Sale and Supply of Alcohol Licence Application – Staff have been advised that the hearing for the Ferry Road Alcohol Licence is to be held on 6 and 7 March 2018 at the Linwood Boardroom.  The hearing will be commencing at 10am. 

·   The Board is asked to appoint one or more members of the Community Board to appear and be heard under section 204(2)(b) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, for the purpose of providing community input at the hearing of 375 Ferry Road Sale and Supply of Alcohol Off Licence Application.

3.1.3   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.  (Attachment A).

3.1.4   Radley Street -  at the Board’s 13 June 2017 the Board requested:

Staff investigate and report to the Board options for traffic calming measures to alleviate traffic speed on Radley Street from Ferry Road to Garlands Road including improved signage, and a pedestrian refuge island around the Sheldon Street intersection.

Staff have investigate the matter and staff findings are attached (Attachment B).

3.1.5   Risingholme Hall and Homestead Climate Control System – The Board is asked to consider recommending that the Council include funding in the Long Term Plan to cover the implementation of an improved climate control system in Risingholme Hall and Homestead (Attachment C).

3.1.6   Graffiti Statistics – Attached is the bi-monthly report on the suburban statistics of the graffiti in the Christchurch City area. (Attachment D)

3.1.7   The Board continues to receive strategic, technical and procedural advice mainly through an ongoing programme of Board seminars held monthly.

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

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

One-way proposal for Cumnor Terrace

25th January 2018 - 19th February 2018

Erect a digital screen billboard - 617 – 649 Colombo Street

17th January 2018 - 15th February 2018

Bays Area Skate Project

26th January 2018 - 26th February 2018

 

3.3       Submission Opportunities

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

3.4       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.4.1   There is no update at time of writing this report.

3.5       Board Reporting

3.5.1   There is no update at time of writing this report.

3.6       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

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

3.7       Requests for information from Board to include in Report to Council

3.7.1   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 1 March 2018.

4.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

4.1       Inner City East Revitalisation Project - The Board has requested monthly updates on progress. The last update was on 29 January 2018.

4.1.1   As reported in January 2018 the first stage of the revitalisation plan was to concentrate on widespread consultation with the community to further establish their hopes, aspirations and concerns.  As of 22 January approximately 50 consultations have taken place with community members at local events, with most of the owners and/or managers of businesses at the Linwood Village and with those attending day programmes at the City Mission.

4.1.2   Further consultations are planned via:

·   A specific newsletter to all households in the area

·   An article in the ICE Community newsletter

·   A weekly drop-in at the Stanmore Road Post Shop

·   Focus groups with existing community groups

·   Continued consultations at community events such as the Linwood village Market and Inner City East Multicultural festival

4.1.3   Most of the people consulted to date have heard of the Revitalisation Plan but have requested further information on the process. Community members have also been asked what they hope might come out of it, and how they would like themselves and other in the Community to be involved.

4.1.4   Issues raised to date have largely mirrored what is already known about the community including information from the survey conducted in the summer of 2016-17.  Issues identified include: lack of affordable housing; rubbish; safety and perceptions of safety; loss of businesses in the Linwood Village area; the new cycle lanes and the loss of car parking and poverty inequality and homelessness.

4.1.5   Hopes raised also reflect previous consultations including: the need for a united, inclusive and diverse community; events and facilities to help bring the community together; improvements to the environment including more trees and green spaces and more opportunities and support for those that are struggling.

4.1.6   Other relevant initiatives include:

Positive opportunities in Linwood Village area

The City Mission, Te Whare Roimata, Collective for the Homeless and the Council have begun collaborating on providing positive recreation and other opportunities for the more marginalised in the community including the homeless and those sleeping rough.  Work on this is ongoing.

Christchurch Housing First initiative

Negotiations with the Ministry of Social Development are well advanced to establish Housing First initiative in Christchurch.  Once established the project will focus on providing permanent homes for those who are chronically homeless or sleeping rough.  Part of the proposal is to establish an urban marae, probably in the Christchurch east area, with associated outreach services.  Over the medium term the initiative will provide homes for many of the homeless and those with vulnerable housing situations, many of whom identify the inner city east as an important community connection.

4.2       Research on Māori living hard in the Inner City East of Christchurch - In early 2017 Te Whare Roimata was commissioned by Te Puni Kokiri to research the experience and needs of Māori who were homeless or in adequate housing in the Inner City East area.  Interviews were conducted with 21 participants (15 men and six women) in March-June 2017 and the research completed in July 2017.  The research provides important insights relevant to both the Inner City East Revitalisation Plan and the plans to establish a Housing First initiative in Christchurch to provide housing for the homeless.

Findings 

4.2.1   For many of those interviewed, the effects of colonisation, such as separation from whanau and whenua, intergenerational trauma, and racism were significant issues. The research found that adaptations of Māori concepts to street life are common. The concept of “street whanau” was important to many. Some members of the street community have adopted leadership roles much like those traditionally held by kaumātua.  The importance of the streets of the Inner City East to the street community can be seen as similar to the importance of tribal whenua, a finding which is supported by other research.

4.2.2   The use of drugs and alcohol was a serious issue amongst those interviewed, particularly in the street community.  It was seen as a way of dealing with the hardships of life on the street such as the cold and the emotional pain. Mental health issues such as depression and suicidal thoughts are also common. Problems with mental health were connected to a number of issues, including separation from whanau, abuse and trauma, including unresolved trauma from the earthquakes, and the hardships of being on the street. Mental health issues are both a cause and effect of homelessness.

4.2.3   The experiences of men and women who are homeless were different. Women were seen to keep a lower profile, reflecting the vulnerability of homeless women, particularly those on the street. Men were more likely to attribute their homelessness to a lack of access to sufficient or appropriate work while the women attributed their homelessness to relationship difficulties.

Issues

4.2.4   Needs varied amongst the different categories of homelessness. Both men and women living on the street expressed the need for access to facilities such as cooking facilities, showers, a place to wash clothes, store belongings and send mail. Some thought these could be all located in a drop-in centre.  Those in shelters and inadequate housing needed access to appropriate accommodation they could afford.

4.2.5   Many of those interviewed found the current system did not assist them to get a home, a more stable life or even access the bare minimum entitlements from government agencies. Work and Income processes were often seen as hard to understand, unhelpful and sometimes punitive and benefits insufficient to meet basic needs.  Many also found that wages available didn’t cover basic expenses. The job market was often perceived as competitive, unsafe and unpredictable, with a number experiencing racism and being forced to take lower-paying casual work. Pressure to take up work opportunities often does not take into account the potential impact on mental or physical health. Rules for accessing social housing often do not take into account the needs of those living hard, such as maintaining important connections to their community and whanau. Some found that social housing rules which did not recognise their childcare arrangements, or housed people individually, with the expectation that they would leave their whanau and dogs on the street. Some made slightly too much money to access social housing, but could still not afford private rentals.

4.2.6   There are very important existing supports including service provided through the churches and community groups, donations and support from the public, charity meals and the services provided by libraries.  The effect of many of these is to make homelessness a little less onerous rather than ending homelessness. One of the big concerns that participants had about existing services was that they were not well coordinated, so there could be a “feast or famine” situation e.g. with community provided meals. Interviewees reported that the Police were sometimes supportive and sometimes the source of harassment.

Recommendations

4.2.7   Any plan to end homelessness in the Inner City East area will need to take into account the need for whanau and whanau-like relationships in any proposed housing arrangements and the cultural needs of those who are homeless.  The development of an urban papakainga, combining a variety of housing options to meet different needs, with connections to an urban marae, community development and housing services is an option that would be in tune with most of the findings from the research.

4.2.8   Based on the comments of the interviewees, it is important that all responses to homelessness take a Treaty-based, cultural perspective and are culturally safe. This includes both increasing opportunities for services to be offered by Maori, for Maori, and increasing the cultural competency of non-Maori providers.

4.2.9   This research suggests that an effective plan to address homelessness in the Inner City East needs to be integrated across sectors, and at local, regional and national levels and include further data collection. It should include strategies for prevention and early intervention and address both immediate needs and structural causes.  These structural causes include both national issues such as the lack of services for those exiting prison and local issues such as the loss of bedsits and other affordable housing and the widespread availability of alcohol and other drugs. The right to choice in housing is essential. An effective plan will need to reflect the voices of those who are homeless, address the physical, social, and spiritual dimensions of homelessness, and acknowledge the wide variety of housing and non-housing needs for people across the severe housing need spectrum.

4.2.10 Providing for the housing needs of those who are currently homeless in the area will be an essential element in the Inner City East Revitalisation Plan to ensure an inclusive community for all.

4.3       Community Facilities (updates and future plans)

4.3.1   Ōpāwa Volunteer Library Rebuild – As Board members have been advised previously it is uneconomic to rebuild the Ōpāwa Volunteer Library which was damaged in the earthquakes. Since this time the Library has been co-located with the Ōpāwa Children’s Library but there is not enough room for both to display their entire collections. The damaged building will need to be demolished and replaced with a new building that will house both the Volunteer Library and Children’s Library.

·     A Working Group, which includes library representatives, a patron of the libraries and Council staff, has been established to provide feedback and advice on the architectural scope of work to be included in the Request for Proposal (RFP) going out to contractors seeking a Design & Build (D/B) method of project delivery to construct a new building. The Working Group’s Terms of Reference are attached (Attachment E.) The Community Board is invited to appoint up to two representatives to this body.

4.4       Infrastructure projects underway

4.4.1   Linwood/Woolston Pool - The Board Workshop held on 29 January 2018 discuss the Board’s requirements for the upcoming community consultation. A report will be presented to the Board’s 26 February 2018 meeting prior to community consultation.

5.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1   At the Board’s 20 September 2017 meeting the following Strengthening Communities Funding Applications were referred to the Community Resilience Partnership Fund and will be put to the Council for consideration.  It is expected that a report including the three projects below will be presented to a Council meeting in February 2018: (Attachment F).

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

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

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

5.2       LYFE 2018 is on Saturday 17 March. The youth crew responsible for planning and delivering LYFE alongside the LYFE Coordinator are meeting regularly to plan the event and have decided to run the event from 4pm to 8pm, as they consider this to be more in keeping with a youth focused event.  This has been agreed to by the LYFE Advisory Group (made up of representatives from youth focused organisations). Youth focused engagement on the Linwood/Woolston Pool will also take place at LYFE within the well-being hub.

5.3       Zumba in the Park is a seven week programme, on Friday mornings from 19 January to 2 March, to increase the positive use of Doris Lusk Reserve and support a low income community have access to a fun, healthy activity that also enlivens the neighbourhood.  The programme is supported with funding from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Light Bulb Moments Fund and coordinated by the Linwood Community Arts Centre with support from Council staff.

5.4       Community events, supported by the Board, are underway with the Inner City Festival Multicultural Festival on 10 February, Garden Party at Edmonds on 18 February, Bromley Community Fair and Phillipstown Hub Giant Food and Market Day on 24 February, LYFE on 17 March and Woolston Gala on 24 March.

5.5       Summer Pool Parties at Waltham Summer Pool are being provided by the Christchurch City Council and More FM with an event for teenagers held on 27 January and one for tots and toddlers on 17 February.

6.5       Linwood Avenue School Community Pool, supported by the Board’s Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Swimming Advancement Fund, will finish the season with a Family Fun Day on Waitangi Day.  The pool has a capacity of 50 swimmers and patronage has been consistent with weather conditions, including a peak of 150 swimmers on one hot day. Swimming lessons have also proved popular.

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

6.1       Local Parks Update

6.1.1   Christchurch has recorded over 3.5 times its average rainfall this January. Significant rains combined with warmer than usual temperatures have trigged substantial grass and weed growth.

6.1.2   Local beaches and parks have been well utilised by the community this summer. The trial of the ‘Big Belly’ bins at Washington Skate Park and Sumner Beach Park have reduced the amount of rubbish complaints this summer.

6.2       Contract Maintenance Schedule

Activity

Frequency per month

Ornamental Mowing

2

Amenity Mowing

2

Informal Mowing

0

Summer Cricket Outfield Mowing

8

Summer Active Mowing

3

Cricket Block Maintenance

4

Summer Sport Line Marking

2

Chemical Weed Control

1

Ornamental Garden Maintenance

2

BBQ Clean

4

Drinking Fountain Clean

4

 

6.3       Key Performance Indicator Scores by Activity – January 2018

December 2017

Quality: 86%

Quality: 98%

 

6.4       Volunteer Activity

6.4.1   Roimata Food Commons (Radley Park)

The Roimata Food Commons project is a community-led initiative to develop parts of Radley Park as a community orchard and vegetable garden. Long term goals of the project include providing fruit and vegetables to the local community, youth educational programmes and community outdoor film events.

The Roimata Commons Trust is working with the Council and OPUS to develop a proposed landscape plan. The Council is also working with the Trust to develop a proposed licence agreement for part of the Park. Both the Landscape Plan and licence will be released for public consultation and then considered by the Board.

Timeline

·    Mid-March – Draft Landscape Plan and licence presented to the Board for review at a seminar

·    Late-March to late-April – Consultation open

·    Early-June – Landscape Plan considered by the Board for approval, and licence considered by the Board for recommendation to the Chief Executive. (Note: The Chief Executive has the delegation to approve licence agreements.)

Note: If there are objections to the licence agreement, a hearing must be held which will delay the decision-making process.

6.4.2   Drayton Reserve

Have been continuing with the working bees over December and January, mostly focusing on watering after the dry spells we’ve been having.  A pre-Christmas walk around the Reserve for volunteers with Colin Meurk pointing out areas and plants of interest was held.

6.4.3   Thistledown Reserve

Andrew Crossland kindly donated some plants before Christmas that he couldn’t plant at Charlesworth owing to the dry weather.  We planted some Coprosma propinqua and Cabbage trees. The next working bee is planned for Saturday 27 January, to continue with weeding.

6.4.4   Laura Kent Reserve

Andrew Crossland kindly donated some plants before Christmas that he couldn’t plant at Charlesworth Reserve due to dry spell. We planted some Coprosma propinqua and Cabbage trees. The next working bee is planned for Saturday 27 January.

6.4.5   Sumner Gardening Group

Continue to work along the eastern side of the esplanade starts up again next week (1 February 2018).

6.5       Capital Works Projects

6.5.1   Sydenham Park

Significant weather events have delayed the Sydenham Park upgrade, realistic completion date is now set at 12 March 2018.

 

6.5.2   Carlton Mill Corner

Significant weather events and unknown underground debris have delayed this project, completion still set at 14 March 2018.

 

7.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

7.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $238,739.  Funding table is Attachment G.

7.1.1   Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $220,821.

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

7.1.3   Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $1,943.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Action Updates 14 February 2018

96

b

Radley Street - Staff Report on Options for Traffic Calming Measures January 2018

99

c

Risingholme Hall and Homestead Funding Request for the Long Term Plan

103

d

Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report January 2018

107

e

Opawa Volunteer Library Working Group - Terms of Reference

108

f

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

112

g

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2017/18

116

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 February 2018

 

 

18.  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.

 

 

 



[1] The Future of Heritage project currently underway has shown through public consultation that heritage buildings and history are important for the community, and that they particularly value heritage for its contribution to City identity, sense of place, community, cultural value and belonging.