Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 26 February 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

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

 

 

21 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

26 February 2018

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 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  

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       40 Cass Street, Sydenham - Proposed Removal of P30 restrictions.......................... 17

C       9.       54 Springfield Road, St Albans - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions...................... 25

C       10.     319 Selwyn Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions....................... 33

C       11.     Marama Crescent (West)/St Andrews Hill Road, Mount Pleasant - Proposed Stop Control and No Stopping restrictions......................................................................... 39

C       12.     60 Bay View Road, Moncks Bay - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions..................... 47

C       13.     45 Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions............................ 55

C       14.     Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction........................................ 63

C       15.     Linwood-Woolston Pool Consultation........................................................................ 69

C       16.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's Youth Development Fund: Jaze Ruiha Jones.................................................................................................. 93

B       17.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 95

C       18.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 96  

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 14 February 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.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 14 February 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

14 February 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 meeting opened with a minute’s silence in memory of the late Jack Sutton, who recently drowned at Sumner, and the late David Bedford, former Chairperson of Environment Canterbury.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies for lateness were received and accepted from Sarah Templeton and Yani Johanson.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Sally Buck declared an interest in Item 10, Madras Street, near Ely Street, Moa Place and Melrose Street – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions,  and took no part in the Board’s discussions and voting thereon.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00224

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 29 January 2018 be confirmed.

Tim Lindley/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                         Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

4.1       Ōpāwa Road Village- Traffic Matters

Daniel Duke, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding safety aspects of the pedestrian crossing and the speed of traffic within the Ōpāwa Road Village (located between the intersections of Ōpāwa Road with Hawthorn Road, Clarendon Terrace and Richardson Terrace).

 

After questions from the members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Duke for his deputation.

 

The Board requested staff advice on the Ōpāwa Village traffic issues highlighted at the Board’s public  forum including:

1.         Improved signage and markings for the pedestrian crossing outside of 147 Ōpāwa Road.

2.         If the placement of the pedestrian crossing outside of 147 Ōpāwa Road is the best place for the crossing within the Ōpāwa Village.

3.         On whether a pedestrian refuge island would be a better option than the current pedestrian crossing outside of 147 Ōpāwa Road.

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1       147 Ōpāwa Road, Ōpāwa - Proposed No Stopping, P10 and P30 Restrictions

Pradesh Patel, Ōpāwa Dairy owner, spoke to the Board regarding parking considerations and restrictions at 147 Ōpāwa Road.

Item 9 of these Minutes refers.

After questions from the members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Patel for his deputation.

 

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

 

The meeting adjourned at 10.52am and reconvened at 10.59am.

Sarah Templeton arrived at the meeting at 10.50am.

Yani Johanson arrived at the meeting at 10.56am.

 

 

Board Consideration

 

The Board also took into consideration the deputation from Pradesh Patel. (Item 5.1 of these minutes refers).

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00225

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be prohibited on the north east side of Ōpāwa 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 five metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 10 minutes at any time on the north east side of Ōpāwa 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 60 minutes on the south west side of Ōpāwa 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 at any time on the south west side of Ōpāwa 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 six metres.

5.         That parking ticks be provided to define the location of individual spaces.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

Yani Johanson requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.

 

 

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

As Sally Buck had declared an interest in this item she vacated the chair.  Deputy Chairperson Jake McLellan assumed the chair for the consideration of this item.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00226 (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 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 six 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.

Darrell Latham/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

Deon Swiggs requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.

 

Sally Buck resumed the Chair.

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00227 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Sara Templeton/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                      Carried

Deon Swiggs, Brenda Lowe-Johnson, Tim Lindley and Yani Johanson requested that their votes against the motion be recorded.

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00228 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Jake McLellan/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

 

7.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

 

Community Board decided LCHB/2018/00229

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

2.         Acknowledge Linwood Community House for their service within the community.

3.         Request staff advice on the Council’s view of the cost of affordable housing in Christchurch.

Alexandra Davids/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                Carried

 

8.   Staff Briefing- Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River Stage Dredging Update

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefing.

2.         Request staff advice on the feasibility of having joint Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and Community Board briefings relating to the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Stage Dredging Project.

 

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11.45pm and reconvened at 11.50am.

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00230 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part B

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.         Request 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.

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

Yani Johanson requested that his vote against the motion be recorded.

 

 

14. 22 Bridle Path Road - Proposed Road Names

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00231

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Let the report lay on the table until staff have sought from the developer, an alternative road name that reflects the surrounding historical area of the proposed road.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

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

 

Board Consideration

 

The Board discussed the amount of the grant recommended and agreed that a grant of $1500 would be appropriate in the circumstances.

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    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. 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00232

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Approves a grant of $1,500 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. 

Alexandra Davids/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00233 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

Yani Johanson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

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

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00234

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

2.         Appoint Sally Buck, Darrell Latham and Alexandra Davids to represent the Community Board and 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 Sally Buck, Tim Lindley (as an alternate for Sally Buck) and Yani Johanson as the Community Board representatives to the Ōpāwa Library Project Working Group.

4.         Request staff to forward the advice received on Radley Street to Ruth Dyson, Member of Parliament and the residents who made a deputation to the Board’s 29 May 2017 meeting on Radley Street Traffic Speed.

5.         Recommend to the Council that funding be included in the Long Term Plan to cover              the         implementation of an improved climate control system in Risingholme Hall and              Homestead.

6.         Grant $11,500 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary              Response Fund 2017/18 to Avebury House Community Trust to contribute towards              covering wages until March 2018 without any change in the proposed levels of funding              through the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

7.         Grant $9,717.46 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary              Response Fund 2017/18 to Waltham Community Cottage towards wages for the Cottage              Project until March 2018 without any change in proposed levels of funding through the              Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

8.         Recommend the following topics for inclusion in the Council’s Newsline:

·        That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board will be held at Avebury House on 14 March, commencing at 10am.

·        The commencement of the Council’s and Environment Canterbury Joint Air Monitoring and advise the community of the hotline phone number.

·        The Board is to make a presentation to the District Licensing Committee hearing on 19/20 March 2018 and would like to outline the Board’s role at District Licensing Hearings.

·        The positive use of public space at Doris Lusk Reserve with the seven week open air programme Zumba in the Park.

9.         Identify the following items for inclusion in the Board report to the Council:

·    The research on Māori living hard in the Inner City East of Christchurch information that was provided in the Board’s February’s Area Report.

·    Board encouragement to the Council to submit on Environment Canterbury’s Long Term Plan specifically on the proposed reduced bus services.

·    Light Bulb Moments funding of public classes at Doris Lusk Reserve.

Sally Buck/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                            Carried

 

Sarah Templeton left the meeting at 12.35pm

Sarah Templeton returned to the meeting at 12.40pm

18. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    The Homeless Collective – The Collective have arranged a picnic at the Groynes for the homeless.

·    Sumner Area Rubbish– The Board were advised that a meeting had been held between the Sumner Residents Association and staff.

·    Sumner Beach Signage –the signage along Sumner beach is being reviewed with a view to better indicating the presence of rips and strong currents at the beach.

·    Moncks Bay slipway – A meeting has been held between the Mt Pleasant Yacht Club and staff to review the issues of a newly installed slipway.

·    Salisbury Street Business Association –the Board were advised that the Salisbury Street Business Association would like to have P120 parking restrictions installed.  The Association will be advised to generate a Customer Service Request through the Council’s Call Centre.

·    Victoria Neighbourhood Association – At a recent Association meeting Dr Bagshaw outlined the proposal for the Youth Village concept for a property on Salisbury Street.

 

18.1 Central City Clean-up

The Board discussed the matter of the untidiness and maintenance of Central City Streets and how the community wish to contribute to cleaning up the streets of the Central City.

 

The Board request the Community Governance Manager and Heads of Transport and Parks to meet with the Board to discuss a project to include the community in assisting the Council to clean up the central city streets and other areas around the city.

 

 

18.2 Housing New Zealand

 

The Board requested a meeting be arranged with Housing New Zealand to discuss how Housing New Zealand is managing the issues in its high density complexes within the Community Board area.

 

18.3 Moving People On

The Board requested staff advice on the written information that is given to homeless people when they are being asked to leave an area by Council officers.

 

 

 

Meeting concluded at 1.00pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/165086

Presenter(s):

Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Pat McIntosh

Beach and Water Access at Beachville Reserve

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 26 February 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Redcliffs Residents Association Letter 16 February 2018

16

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

8.        40 Cass Street, Sydenham - Proposed Removal of P30 restrictions

Reference:

18/31041

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 revoking of a P30 restriction on the north side of Cass Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated on the east side of Cass Street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide parking opportunities that correspond with the existing business activity 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.         Revoke all existing parking time restrictions on the north side of Cass Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 100 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 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:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for staff at the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business owner located on the eastern end Cass Street approached council to highlight that the existing parking restrictions are no longer appropriate and that are required by staff.

5.2       Consequently a request to remove the existing P30 restrictions, which affect 23 parking spaces has been requested.

5.3       Staff visited the site and informally approached business owners on Cass Street and Sandyford Street, which backs onto Cass Street. The consensus of these conversation confirmed that unrestricted parking was preferred at this location.

5.4       Staff observed that there are already four P60 parking spaces on the south east side of Cass Street which provide short stay opportunities, and are considered sufficient provision. It is evident that there are also parking or delivery opportunities within most of the existing properties along this section of Cass Street.

5.5       The removal of the 30 minute restrictions at this location will be a more appropriate provision for the current land use activity. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Remove P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Replace the existing 30 minute restrictions on the east side of part of Cass Street with unrestricted parking 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 all addresses on the eastern side of Cass and Sandyford Streets as well as the nearby business owner at 500 Colombo Street.

6.5       No letters of objection were received.  A response was received by the owners of 40 Cass Street who requested an amendment, that six of the spaces be retained as P30 for visitor’s use.

6.6        In response, staff consider that the four existing P60 spaces located opposite are already available and are underused. This is based on site observations at different times of a working day. Consequently, these are considered sufficient to meet the short stay needs in this area and staff recommend that all of the spaces become unrestricted.

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 - $200 to remove two signs and posts.

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:

·   Provides increased all day parking opportunity for staff at the nearby businesses

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing 30 minute restrictions

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 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.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

40 Cass St location plan

22

b

40 Cass St P30 removal site plan

23

 

 

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

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

9.        54 Springfield Road, St Albans - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/77575

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 no stopping restrictions on the east and west side of Springfield Road and on the south side of Clare 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 this street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety for all drivers 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.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Springfield Road commencing at its intersection with Durham Street north and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of ten metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Springfield Road commencing at its intersection with Durham Street North and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Clare Road commencing at its intersection with Springfield Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Springfield Road commencing at its intersection with Clare Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight 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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.2.2   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety at the intersection by ensuring drivers do not need to driver over the centre line as a result of passing parked cars.

·   Improve sight lines for drivers approaching the intersection from four directions

·   Improves the sight lines for some residents leaving driveways

4.2.3   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in the displacement of approximately three parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident at no.54B expressed concern relating to the effect of parked cars on this section of Springfield Road causing safety concerns due to sight lines being blocked.  This occurs at a complex local intersection which includes a bending alignment.

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to improve driver sight lines and improve safety.

5.3       Staff investigated the site and agreed with the concern. Parking regularly takes place at this location on both sides of Springfield Road. The initial residents concern was leaving their driveway (shared with no.54A), which is challenging due to traffic movements on Springfield Road (both directions), Clare Road (right turn) and Durham Street North (left turn into Springfield Road). The curving alignment also contributes to poor sight lines.

5.4       The crash history was investigated. During a 5 year period only one crash was recorded in 2013 which occurred in darkness and involved a vehicle losing control at the bend and at an inappropriate speed.

5.5       As well as the driveway issue, site observations revealed a combination of safety issues at this location. Drivers on Springfield Road, in both directions, often have to drive over the centre line, to overtake parked cars. At this location, the various turning movements and the proximity of two intersections, results in considerable risks to drivers potentially colliding in opposing directions.

5.6       Staff support the addition of additional no stopping restrictions to improve sight lines and ensure drivers are not required to driver over the centre line.  There will be some displacement of parked vehicles, though this is considered a necessary consequence at a complex intersection with safety risks. There are other parking opportunities on nearby streets.

5.7       The installation of the no stopping restrictions, as well as other improved markings and signage at this location will substantially improve safety at this location. 


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the east and west side of Springfield Road and on the south side of Clare 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 on Springfield Road and Clare Road.

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 provide no stopping road markings.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety at the intersection by ensuring drivers are not required to drive over the centre line

·   Improve sight lines for drivers approaching the intersection from 4 directions

·   Improves the sight lines for some residents leaving driveways

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in the displacement of approximately 3 parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for improving driver safety in accordance with 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 the nearby residents.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

54 Springfield Rd NSR site plan

30

b

54 Springfield Rd location plan

31

 

 

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

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

10     319 Selwyn Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/25198

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on the west side of Selwyn Street, as shown in Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for 34 metres.

2.         Approve a no stopping restriction on the western side of Selwyn Street commencing at a point 28 metres north of its intersection with Brougham Street (at the end of the cycle lane) and extending in a northerly direction for 6.0 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by providing a better transition for cyclists to merge with the live traffic stream.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes one unmarked car parking space.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Recently a user of the road has raised concerns about the lack of transition space for a cyclist to merge from the existing cycle lane into the adjoining road.  This is of particular concern when a kerbside car is parked right up against the end of the marked cycle lane which terminates in this location.

5.2       Upon investigation staff concur that kerbside parking makes it challenging for cyclists to safely navigate from the cycle lane into the main through lane.  The installation of a no stopping restriction for a length of 6.0 metres will improve this situation by providing some merge space.  The parking restriction would still allow two cars to park outside of the adjoining site.

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install No Stopping restrictions on Selwyn Street in accordance with Attachment A.

6.2       This option removes one on street parking space, however parking demand is sufficiently low that the displacement of parking will be negligible.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

Council officers met with the affected property owner at 319 Selwyn Street (Addington Motel).  The proposal is supported by them.  Two kerbside car parking spaces are still available directly outside this property.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - $400 for road markings and associated traffic management.

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

6.5.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations budget - Signs Regulatory.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       None identified.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by providing some merge space for cyclists.

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes one car parking space.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing kerbside parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0. 

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable. 

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Dependent on the contractor's workload but should be completed within 6 weeks of the Community Board approving it.

Option Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the lack of merge space at the end of this cycle lane.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

319 Selwyn St NSR site plan

37

b

319 Selwyn St location plan

38

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

11     Marama Crescent (West)/St Andrews Hill Road, Mount Pleasant - Proposed Stop Control and No Stopping restrictions

Reference:

18/25218

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a Stop control and No Stopping restrictions on both sides of Marama Crescent (west) and both sides of St Andrews Hill Road at their intersection, as shown in Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

             That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Approve the installation of a Stop Control at Marama Crescent (west) at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road.

 

2.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of St Andrews Hill Road commencing at a point 26 metres east of its intersection with Marama Crescent (west) and extending in a westerly direction for 42 metres.

 

3.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Marama Crescent (west) commencing at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road and extending in a south easterly direction for 17 metres.

 

4.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marama Crescent (west) commencing at its intersection with St Andrews Hill Road and extending in a south easterly direction for 11 metres.

 

5.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of St Andrews Hill Road commencing at its intersection with Marama Crescent (west) and extending in a westerly direction for eight metres.

 

6.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of St Andrews Hill Road commencing at its intersection with Marama Crescent (west) and extending in an easterly direction for 19 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Approve Stop Control and No Stopping restrictions  (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3       The advantages of this option include:

·   Stop control resolves an identified crash risk

·   Improves road safety as it clarifies priorities at this location.

·   Reduces speeds to a safe level on Marama Crescent.

·   Parking is deterred from locations that could impair sight lines or result in drivers dangerously encroaching centre lines.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A small displacement of parking on-street.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A community member queried the operation of the intersection of Marama Crescent (west) and St Andrews Hill Road, as it is currently uncontrolled and expressed concern relating to road safety.

5.2       Staff subsequently investigated the characteristics of the intersection. The NZTA crash database reports no crashes recorded from 2011-2015. 

5.3       Site investigations revealed that there are various safety issues at this location. Currently the road markings consist only of centre line markings and priorities are not evident. Priorities are not a requirement here are the streets are classified as ‘local’ in the road hierarchy.  Traffic flows are relatively light and equal between each approach. St Andrews Hill is a scheduled bus route.

5.4       Drivers on Marama Crescent approach the intersection on a steep downhill and winding alignment. At St Andrews Hill Road, the intersection is on a crest. Consequently drivers on Marama approach relatively quickly in contrast with those on St Andrews Hill Road. Consequently it is considered appropriate that Marama Crescent should be designated as the side road, to encourage drivers to slow down to appropriate speeds for a residential area.

5.5       The approach from Marama Crescent has a poor sight line to St Andrews Hill Road in both directions due to the crest on St Andrews Hill Road.  Furthermore, the acute angle of its approach combined with trees on the east approach result in minimal visibility towards the east. Consequently Stop control is considered necessary.

5.6       For the introduction of Stop control, staff have referred to the NZTA requirements set out in MOTSAM section 2, which concerns regulatory signs.  Section RG-5 relates to the introduction of Stop control.  An approach is required to have a sight line 9m from the intersection that is able to see a vehicle on an uncontrolled approach at a distance 1.2x the speed of vehicles on the main road. If this is not achieved, a Stop control is fully justified.

5.7       The introduction of a Stop control will provide clarity of the intersection priorities and reduce the risk of this uncertainty resulting in a crash.  New stopping restrictions will also ensure that parking does not occur near the intersection which could reduce sight lines.

6.   Option 1 - Install Stop Control and No Stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the installation of Stop Control on Marama Crescent (west) at its intersection with St Andrews Hill and No Stopping restrictions, to complement the Stop control and maintain clear sight lines at the intersection.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation have been sent to the owners and tenants of the 10 nearest properties.

6.5       Two emails in support were received and none were received in objection or requesting amendment.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6.1   Cost of Implementation - $1100 for Stop control and road markings.

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

6.6.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations budget - Signs Regulatory.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       None identified.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Stop control helps resolve an identified crash risk

·   Improves road safety as it clarifies priorities at this location

·   Introducing stop control helps reduce speeds to a safe level on this section of Marama Crescent

·   New stopping restrictions ensure that parking is deterred from locations that could impair sight lines or result in drivers dangerously encroaching centre lines

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A small displacement of parking on-street

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

Option Description

7.1       Do not install any traffic controls on the intersection of Marama Crescent (west) and St Andrews Hill Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0. 

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable. 

Legal Implications

7.9       Not Applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

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

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:

·   No advantages have been recognised

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not resolve an identified crash risk

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Marama St Andrews Stop site plan

45

b

Marama St Andrews location plan

46

 

 

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

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

12.    60 Bay View Road, Moncks Bay - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/35300

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 no stopping restrictions on the western end of Bay View Road, including its extension into the eastern side of Barnett Park, 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 this street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to increase turning space at the end of the 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.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the western side of the extension of Bay View Road into Barnett Park, commencing at a point 94 metres south west of its intersection with Red Rock Lane and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the southern side of Bay View Road commencing at a point 91 metres south west of its intersection with Red Rock Lane and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres into the formed access within the eastern side of Barnett Park.

 

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 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:

·     Increases the road space available for large vehicles to turn.

·     Increases the space for vehicles accessing the utility substation.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include

·     Some minor displacement of parking.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident on Bay View Road expressed concern that parked vehicles at the end of the street were affecting the movement of large vehicles, especially refuse trucks. Improvements were requested to provide increased turning space.

5.2       Upon investigation staff determined that the formed road extends beyond the legal western extent of Bay View Road. Further west the formed road is within Barnett Park, which is owned by Christchurch City Council.

5.3       Currently there are no restrictions at this end of Bay View Road. Occasionally, vehicles were observed to park in the area of interest and were often users of Barnett Park who live elsewhere and exercised their dogs or went for a walk.

5.4       Staff also consulted the kerbside collection team, who also confirmed that their vehicles were experiencing difficulties at this location.

5.5       The installation of the no stopping restrictions at this location will assist refuse trucks, delivery vehicles and other vehicles accessing the substation at the end of the street.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide No Stopping restrictions at the southwestern end of Bay View Road and the formed road within Barnett Park 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 Bay View Road. The 10 nearest properties to the proposal were contacted.

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 provide road markings.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15.1 The advantages of this option include:

·     Increases the road space available for large vehicles to turn

·     Increases the space for vehicles accessing the utility substation

6.15.2 The disadvantages of this option include

·   Some minor displacement of parking.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for introducing restrictions to assist turning vehicles.

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 needs of the large vehicles needing to turn at this location.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

60 Bay view Rd NSR site plan

52

b

60 Bay View Rd 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

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

13.    45 Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

18/66775

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 30 minute restrictions on the west side of Orbell Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated on the west side of Orbell Street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide parking opportunities that correspond with the existing business activity at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes between Monday and Friday on the west side of Orbell Street commencing at a point 19 metres north of its intersection with Burke Street and extending in a northerly 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 – Provide 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:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for customers at the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes all day parking used by people who work in the area.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business owner located on Orbell Street requested a change to the existing restrictions outside their property. This area is currently unrestricted and is often occupied all day by the same vehicle.  The request was for 2 short stay parking spaces that would be convenient for customers to their business.

5.2       Upon investigation at different times of day, council staff observed that all spaces along this block on both sides are unrestricted.  There are P30 and P60 restrictions approximately 40m south of this location on both sides of Orbell Street, though are frequently used. The proposal would therefore be consistent with other short stay provision in the area.

5.3       Staff checked the required operating times with the customer. This was agreed to apply between Monday and Friday only.

5.4       The installation of the 30 minute restrictions at this location will be consistent with the short stay parking restrictions on Orbell Street, located immediately south of this area.  There will be a minor displacement of all day parking though this is expected to be accommodated within the local streets in this area.


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide two spaces of 30 minute restrictions on the west side of part of Orbell Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at the 10 nearest properties on Orbell Street and Burke 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 provide new road markings together and two signs on new 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 six 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 customers at the nearby businesses

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor displacement of all day parking.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for 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    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.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

45 Orbell St P30 site plan

60

b

45 Orbell St location plan

61

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

14.    Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction.

Reference:

18/23292

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

9416428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of parking restrictions to support the operation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers in The Botanic Gardens car park at the western end of Armagh Street as shown on Attachment A. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the proposed installation of electric vehicle chargers by Orion New Zealand Limited, and in support of the Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.2   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.

2.1.3   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 existing parking of vehicles within the two parking spaces identified in attachment ‘A’ located within the  Hagley Park, Car Park at the western end of Armagh Street and currently restricted to a maximum period of 180 minutes be revoked.

2.         Approve that parking of vehicles within the two parking spaces identified in attachment ‘A’ located within the  Hagley Park, Car Park at the western end of Armagh Street be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at any time and reserved for the use of electric vehicles for the purposes of charging their batteries only.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install Electric Vehicle Charger Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

·     Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no disadvantages identified with this option

 

5.   Context/Background

Hagley Park Electric Vehicle parking Station Restrictions

5.1       In October 2015 the Christchurch City Council (CCC) adopted the Christchurch Energy Action Plan. The action plan includes CCC programme areas of work relating to encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. It is considered that when residents see publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure being available, that they may feel more comfortable about the purchase and use of an electric vehicle.

5.2       With the rapid improvement in electric vehicle technology, we are seeing an increase in the range and affordability of electric vehicles for use in corporate fleets and by private individuals. Developments are already underway to provide charging infrastructure for electric vehicles travelling out of Christchurch, which will further support the uptake of these vehicles.

5.3       In 2016 the Council owned, off street car park near the Botanical gardens at the western end of Armagh Street was identified as a location suitable for the installation of an electric vehicle charging station. In early 2017 an electric charging station was installed on the southern side of the car park, near the pedestrian bridge into the Botanical Gardens.

5.4       Due to time restraints at the time to have this Electric vehicle charger station installed and as the proposed  location was not on legal road but Hagley Park council owned land a report was not put to the Community Board.

6.   Option 1 - Hagley Park Electric Vehicle parking Station Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       All electric vehicle charging stations installed by the council are restricted for the use of electric vehicles only for the purpose of charging their battery only and for a restricted maximum time period as stated on the signs at each site. The time limit restriction enables a turnover of electric vehicles within these spaces. The restrictions are proposed to operate at any time, to support around the clock access to the chargers.

6.2       To date no infringement notices have been issued in relation to inappropriate use of an electric vehicle charging stations however a number of complaints have been received. These complaints state that the Hagley Park charging station’s two parking spaces are being used by petrol powered vehicles on the weekends.

6.3       Council has the ability to impose parking restrictions within council owned carparks and currently the Hagley Park public car park at the end of Armagh Street has a 180 minute time restriction imposed upon it. This proposal proposes restricting the two Electric Vehicle parking spaces to a maximum time period of 60 minutes.

6.4       Imposing the proposed 60 minute will enable the councils parking enforcement officers to enforce the time restriction and that the charging station is used for its intended purpose, which is for the charging of electric vehicles.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with effected property owners.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       This proposal is supported by the Parks Manager, Botanical Gardens, the councils Resource Efficiency Manager, as the council is the sole land owner there are no other immediately affected parties.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is  with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $200.00

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Are covered under the area maintenance contract.  

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Not applicable

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.18    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries

·   Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No Identified disadvantages

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not impose time restrictions on the two parking spaces associated with the Hagley Park Electric Vehicle charging Station.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See 6.8 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – N/A

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

7.8       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

7.9       See 6.13 to 6.15 above

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    N/A

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

7.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages with not time restricting the two EV spaces.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Doesn’t support the Christchurch Energy Action Plan

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan Botanic Gardens EV Charger Parks

68

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

15.    Linwood-Woolston Pool Consultation

Reference:

18/95887

Contact:

Kent Summerfield

kent.summerfield@ccc.govt.nz

941 8194

 

 

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 endorse the community engagement package outlined for Linwood-Woolston Pool; and to seek a recommendation to commence consultation and engagement on this basis.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined in accordance with the Council’s significance and engagement policy, including a review of the numbers of affected people, the positive social and cultural impacts, the benefits and opportunities created and the related capital expenditure.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location for the Linwood-Woolston Pool based on the tabled consultation booklet (Attachment A).

a.         The consultation document lists five sites which have been assessed for suitability and identifies 141 Smith Street (Linwood Park) as the favoured site.  Respondents may indicate support for the favoured site or any other which they may wish to specify.

2.         Notes the scale of the project to be provided should be consistent with the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP).  However the community consultation process will seek community feedback on the function and nature of the facility to best meet the current and future needs of the community.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

·     Level of Service: 7.0.1 Provide residents’ access to fit-for-purpose recreation and sporting facilities

4.2       The current Annual Plan and proposed draft Long Term Plan include a total of around $21.6m of capital expenditure to develop a Linwood-Woolston Pool facility.

4.3       Staff and supporting consultants have conducted an investigation of five sites identified as potential locations for the Linwood-Woolston Pool facility: 180 Smith Street, 141 Smith Street, 502 Ferry Road, 170 Buckleys Road and 252 Linwood Avenue.

4.4       Staff and supporting consultants also conducted a review of available community feedback and held discussions with some key identified stakeholders to understand broadly the scale and nature of the facility.

4.5       Following analysis against key assessment criteria and informal discussion with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, staff identified 141 Smith Street as the favoured site option.  Refer to Attachment B – Linwood-Woolston Pool site selection analysis for further detail.

4.6       Staff now recommend proceeding to formal, specific consultation with the community on the Linwood-Woolston Pool, in order to:

a)    support a fully informed decision on the selection of a site, and

b)    to gather additional feedback on community requirements/expectations for the facility which will support development of a Concept Design.

4.7       The delegation to make a decision regarding proceeding with consultation sits with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, as on 7 December 2017, Council resolved:

That the Council:

1.   Delegate community consultation on a site and initial scope of the proposed Linwood/Woolston pool to the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board, noting that;

a.   Community consultation is based upon the parameters of the project detailed in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan as amended by the 2017/18 Annual Plan.

b.   Council’s Engagement Team will be available to advise any statutory or best practice requirements of the consultation.

4.8       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location of the Linwood-Woolston Pool (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Defer consultation.

4.9       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.9.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   The project has progressed to a point where community engagement is essential to it proceeding further.

·   This project will positively impact a community with specific needs. The Linwood-Woolston Pool facility will be aimed at improving accessibility to swimming and recreational facilities for children, elderly and those of limited means.  This focus on groups who may currently not be participating or only participating in a limited capacity, supports the goal of having more people, more active, more often.

·   There is community expectation for the Council to proceed with the project in line with the Council’s 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP).

·   Community engagement to date has indicated a significant desire/need amongst the community for the facility, and as such it is appropriate that they be given the opportunity to be consulted on the selection of the site and also how they may use it.

·   Site selection and further detail on user requirements are necessary before a Concept Design can be produced.

4.9.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There may be suitable sites which have not yet been reviewed.  Respondents have the opportunity to put forward any site they wish, but should a site emerge as a strong/favoured option which has not previously been assessed or presented to the community, additional investigation and consultation may be required.

 

5.   Background - Linwood Development Aspirations (pre-engagement)

5.1       The Linwood Development Aspirations engagement process started in March 2016 to find out what the social, recreational and infrastructural aspirations of people who live, work and learn in the Linwood area are.  The process was facilitated by the Christchurch City Council’s Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Governance Team who worked closely with local schools, groups and community organisations.

5.2       The data was collected using an iterative process that included:

·   Focus group discussions with children and young people at seven local primary schools and one secondary school;

·   A survey questionnaire collected views of those who live, work and learn in Linwood.  This was done using social media, school newsletters, at the It’s Great to Live Here expo at Eastgate Shopping Centre, and in the Linwood Library;

·   Focus group discussions were then held with local residents through various organisations;

·   Specific discussions were held with groups and organisations that are currently based in Council facilities in the focus area;

·   A large group discussion was held with community groups and organisations early on to present the data that had been collected to date and to identify issues that community groups and organisations knew of that would complement the data that had been collected;

·   Further community engagement through survey questionnaires and focus groups were held to gather more data;

·   Small group discussions with specific groups including the Disability Advisory Group, Te Puna Oranga, Te Whare Taonga Iwi Katoa Linwood Resource Centre, Linwood Rugby League and Te Whare Roimata Trust were held; and

·   Large group discussions including focus groups held with large organisations community groups and agencies working in the area.

5.3       The findings: What does the community value about the area?

·   The variety of local stores and shopping options (Retail) was the most valuable aspect of the area. In addition to Eastgate Shopping Centre, Linwood has a variety of franchise and local businesses.

·   The proximity of the area to most things and easy access to places such as the central city, beaches, the hills, parks, schools, and major amenities, made Linwood a very valuable place to live, work, learn and play.

·   The green space, including the local Linwood Park, other local sports fields and parks, playgrounds and even the large central grass verge on Linwood Ave.

·   The sense of community in the area including the Linwood Library. Many talked about good neighbours (often elderly), friendly and helpful people.

5.4       The findings: What other activities would people like to be doing? 

·   Swimming (103) – swimming lessons and for leisure.

·   Sports (84) – a wide range of activities were listed.

·   Commercial recreational activities (69) – particularly going to the movies (25), a water park (9) and a theme park (8).

·   Community activities and events (60) – including festivals, activities for children,  youth and older adults, (smaller) community activities (held regularly)

·   Social, cultural and interest groups (47)

·   Fitness and exercise (41) – includes fitness/exercise groups (21) and biking (10).

·   Visiting parks and environment (37) –spending time at parks and playgrounds (32).

·   Walking and walking dogs (34)

·   The arts (30) – includes music (14) and dance (9).

·   Socialising with others (29) – including family (13), friends (8) and community

5.5       Based on the findings of the pre-engagement process outlined above, the Linwood-Woolston community aspires to have:

·     Investment in community recreational facilities that would include a swimming pool along with over wrap around services.

·     More opportunities to connect with others in the community through large events and festivals, and smaller group activities that focus on particular age groups and interests.

5.6       The aspirations listed in 5.5 validated the allocation of capital via the Council’s Long Term Plan, and staff subsequently undertook initial investigative works as outlined in Section 6.

6.   Site selection (shortlisting):

6.1       The project team undertook a structured (quantitative) assessment of a wide arc of locations predominantly based around the Linwood-Woolston geographic areas.

6.2       These were then assessed in a site selection matrices, measuring against:

·        Location catchment;

·        Future expansion/Hubbing potentials;

·        Wayfinding/Approach/Visibility;

·        Transport Planning (walking/public and active means);

·        Impacts on residents or neighbours;

·        Availability/Impacts on existing users;

·        Land Quality/Remediation; 

·        Resource Consent/ Reserves Act issues; and 

·        School catchment.

For additional detail refer to Attachment 2 – Linwood/Woolston Pool Site Selection Analysis.

6.3       The favoured location identified in conjunction with the Linwood-Central- Heathcote Community Board was 141 Smith Street (Linwood Park).

6.4       The consultation process will provide the community with the opportunity to offer alternative locations, whether or not the location was included in the initial assessment.

6.5       In accordance with the Council resolution of 7 December 2017, the finalised consultation document (Attachment A) and process is to be approved by the Linwood-Central- Heathcote Community Board before it is launched.

6.6       The community consultation will be based on Council’s best practice model customised to the needs and attributes of the local community.  Following the consultation and engagement process a report will be prepared for the Linwood-Central- Heathcote Community Board and the Council summarising the results and will recommend further action.

7.   Identified specification drivers for the facility:

7.1       Based on earlier stakeholder engagement and feedback and expert analysis a set of key drivers for specifying the facility have been identified:

·        The facility is primarily a swimming pool with associated support facilities (Other dry area recreation, changing, meeting spaces, cooking facilities with access to the outdoors, etc.)

·        It should be a highly connected community facility. Well integrated with bus, public transport and cycle routes etc.

·        It will focus on serving specific local needs, those within a 2-4km catchment.

·        A quality facility that the local community can be proud of and “own”.

·        A meeting place for the community. A place for community activity. Providing a space and place for social interaction, both internally and externally with numerous activated and linked spaces.

·        The facility should foster the opportunity to build partnerships with community organisations.

·        Facility must be easy and economical to operate, and should address cost as a barrier to community participation.

·        It should reflect and celebrate the local cultures and diverse community. High Demographics of Maori / Pacific / Filipino / middle eastern.

·        Provide physical and social health benefits to the community.

8.   Option 1 - Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location of the Linwood-Woolston Pool (preferred)

Option Description

8.1       Approve the Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location for the Linwood-Woolston Pool based on the tabled consultation booklet (Attachment A).

The consultation document lists five sites which have been assessed for suitability and identifies 141 Smith Street (Linwood Park) as the favoured site.  Respondents may indicate support for the favoured site or any other which they may wish to specify.

8.2       Notes the scale of the project to be provided should be consistent with the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP).  However the community consultation process will seek community feedback on the function and nature of the facility to best meet the current and future needs of the community.

Significance

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

8.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are medium and reflect the assessment.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.6       The project deliverables reflect the initial findings and needs as identified within Linwood Development Aspirations pre-engagement study. Further community views will be sought through this process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.8       Cost of Implementation – $10,000 (consultation process).

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - NIL

8.10    Funding source – Operational budgets planned for this purpose.

Legal Implications

8.11    This option recommends consultation with the community so the Board/Council can better understand the views of the community on the options for a site for the facility, as well as some initial feedback on the function and nature of the facility.  This will assist the Council to comply with its decision-making obligations in the Local Government Act 2002.

8.12    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

8.13    There may be suitable sites which have not yet been reviewed.  Respondents have the opportunity to put forward any site they wish, but should a site emerge as a strong/favoured option which has not previously been assessed or presented to the community, additional investigation and consultation may be required.

8.14    There is no direct mitigation for risk outlined in 8.13.  Known potential site have been assessed and the intent of the proposed consultation process under Option 1 is to seek community views on site selection.  Should a strong, previously unidentified option emerge from the consultation process that would represent a better outcome than proceeding without knowledge of that option.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies - None

8.16    Implementation timeframe - 4-6 weeks

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The project has progressed to a point where community engagement is essential to it proceeding further.

·   This project will positively impact a community with specific needs. The Linwood-Woolston Pool facility will be aimed at improving accessibility to swimming and recreational facilities for children, elderly and those of limited means.  This focus on groups who may currently not be participating or only participating in a limited capacity, supports the goal of having more people, more active, more often.

·   There is community expectation for the Council to proceed with the project in line with the Council’s 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP).

·   Community engagement to date has indicated a significant desire/need amongst the community for the facility, and as such it is appropriate that they be given the opportunity to be consulted on the selection of the site and also how they may use it.

·   Site selection and further detail on user requirements are necessary before a Concept Design can be produced.

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There may be suitable sites which have not yet been reviewed.  Respondents have the opportunity to put forward any site they wish, but should a site emerge as a strong/favoured option which has not previously been assessed or presented to the community, additional investigation and consultation may be required.

9.   Option 2 - Defer consultation

Option Description

9.1       This option involves deferring the commencement of the consultation process.  The exact nature of the deferment would be dependent on the reasons the Board may identify for doing so.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are medium (assuming consultation is only deferred and not cancelled) and reflect the assessment.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.5       Expressed community views support progression of this project as swiftly as possible.  The view of the community on any deferment may be dependent on its length and the Board’s reasons for implementing it.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.6       This option could still be consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies if consultation was only deferred and not cancelled.

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – dependent upon the rationale for deferment and any actions requested before recommencement.  In itself there is no cost associated with deferment.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

9.9       Funding source – would

Legal Implications

9.10    The Legal Services Unit recommend consultation with the community so the Board/Council can better understand the views of the community on the options for a site for the facility, as well as some initial feedback on the function and nature of the facility as this will assist the Council to comply with its decision-making obligations in the Local Government Act 2002.  A deferment of the consultation in itself would not contradict this recommendation, although it would be dependent upon its length and nature.

9.11    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

9.12    There is a risk that the community would view a deferment of consultation unfavourably as it will likely impact the project timeline.

9.12.1    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) <is/are> implemented will be Medium

9.12.2    Treatment for this risk would include documenting and communicating clear rationale for any deferment and providing a clear action list and timeframe to recommence consultation.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies - dependent on nature of deferment.

9.14    Implementation timeframe - dependent on nature of deferment.  Any scenario under this option is likely to delay overall project timeframe.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Deferment of consultation would present an opportunity to explore other potential sites.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Deferment of consultation would likely delay the project overall.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Woolston Pool consultation booklet

78

b

Linwood-Woolston Pool site selection analysis

90

 

 

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

Lee Sampson - Senior Project Manager - Development

Kent Summerfield - Senior Project Manager

Elizabeth Farthing - Recreation & Sports Planner

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

16.    Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's Youth Development Fund: Jaze Ruiha Jones

Reference:

18/121869

Presenter(s):

Diana Saxton Community Recreation Adviser

 

 

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 $250 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Jaze Ruiha Jones towards attending the indoor Netball Nationals in Auckland from 8-12 March 2018.

 

4.   Applicant – Jaze Ruiha Jones

4.1       Jaze Jones is a 12 year old from Richmond. She has been selected to compete in the Under 23 Indoor Netball New Zealand Nationals in Auckland from 8 to 12 March 2018.

4.2       Jaze plays for the Storm Netball Club. She has been part of the club for the six weeks. The team plays every Tuesday and trains for two hours every Sunday.

4.3       Jaze is a very talented young athlete having represented Canterbury in U14 basketball and U14 touch and athletics. Her goal is to represent Canterbury again in 2018 in netball, touch and basketball and to do well at school.

4.4       Jaze is a year 9 student at Avonside Girls High where she is studying PE, Maths, English, Science, Music, Te Reo Maori and Technology.  She is also involved in kapa haka and the performing arts.

4.5       The Storm Netball Club are undertaking a range of fundraising activities including a car wash, a sausage sizzle and selling chocolate.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Jaze Ruiha Jones to attend the indoor netball nationals in Auckland from 8 to 12 March 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

180

Fees

50

Accommodation

240

Van Hire

24

Uniform

20

                                                                                                 Total

$514

 

4.7       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

26 February 2018

 

 

17.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

18.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

26 February 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

19

Road Stopping Application

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(g)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege

To protect the applicant's privacy and because the report contains sensitive legal advice on the Council's position

Should never be released