Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 14 March 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

Venue:                                 Avebury House, 9 Eveleyn Couzins Avenue, Richmond

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

13 March 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 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.       Austin Street near Hume Road, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.... 17

C       9.       31 Saxon Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions......................... 25

C       10.     180 Avonside Drive, Avonside - Proposed Extension to School Bus Parking Area.. 33

C       11.     Update on Ely Street within the Living Streets programme..................................... 41

C       12.     Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction........................................ 47

C       13.     Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration.............................................. 53

CA     14.     Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan......................................................................................................................................... 77

C       15.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 93

B       16.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 116

C       17.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 117  

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 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 Monday, 26 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.

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

OR

There will be no public forum at this meeting

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 26 February 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

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

 

 

26 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 agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

An apology for lateness was received and accepted from Brenda Lowe-Johnston.  An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Yani Johanson.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 14 February 2018 be confirmed.

Alexandra Davids/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                         Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnston arrived at the meeting at 3.07pm.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Mr Lloyd Reid, resident of Jubilee Street, spoke to the Board about his road stopping application in Jubilee Street, Woolston.

Item 18. of these minutes refers.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Reid for his presentation.

 

18. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00021

Part C

That at 3.30pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 96 to 97 of the agenda be adopted.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                             Carried

 The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.15pm.

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 26 February 2018.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00022

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

2.       Request staff advice on re-installing the public access steps to the water’s edge at Beachville Reserve at the east end of Beachville Road in time to inform the Board’s Long Term Plan (LTP) Submission.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

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

 

Staff Recommendation 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00023

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Let the report lay on the table until staff have carried out consultation on whether the time restrictions be revoked or not.

Jake McLellan/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00024 (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 Springfield Road commencing at its intersection with Durham Street north and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 10 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.

Yani Johanson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

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

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00025

Part C

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.

3.         That the existing northbound cycle lane on Selwyn Street be modified 20 metres north of Brougham Street to show taper road markings to signify the end of the cycle lane.

Darrell Latham/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00026 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

             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 8 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.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00027 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00028 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Yani Johanson/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

14. Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction.

 

Board Comment

1.         The Board discussed the matter of the time limits of the carparks within the Hagley Park carpark and noted that the chargers within the carpark are slow chargers. The Board sought further staff advice on why the proposed P60 time restriction differed from the 180 minute parking time limit for the rest of the Botanical Gardens car park.

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00029

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Let the report lay on the table for staff to provide advice on changing the time limit of the car parks.

Sally Buck/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

Deon Swiggs requested that their vote against the decision be recorded.

 

 

15. Linwood-Woolston Pool Consultation

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00030

Part C

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.

3.         Recommends additional multicultural graphics and references to appear throughout the consultation document.

Jake McLellan/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00031 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

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.

Yani Johanson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                               Carried

 

17. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following items:

·    Mobile Advertising on Linwood Avenue  - the increase and re-occurrence of mobile advertising and cars for sale on the verge opposite Woodlands in Linwood Avenue was discussed.  The Board were advised that the new Traffic and Parking Bylaw will come into effect on 1 March 2018 which will make such parking illegal.

·    Sumner Temporary Skate ramp – the Board discussed that there are still issues with skateboarders around Nayland Street; this has not been alleviated by the installation of the temporary skate ramp on the corner of Nayland Street and Wakefield Avenue.

·    Council Draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan Consultation –the Board discussed proposed workshops and drop in sessions for the Board to engage on the Council’s Draft 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan.

Yani Johanson left the meeting at 5.26pm

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 5.33pm

   

Meeting concluded at 5.35pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14th DAY OF MARCH 2018.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/222025

Presenter(s):

Shupayi Mpunga

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Heathcote Valley Community Association Inc.

Proposed Name of New Road at 22 Bridle Path Road subdivision.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Heathcote Valley Community Assocaition Inc - Proposed Naming of New Road at 22 Bridle Path Road Subdivision

16

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

8.        Austin Street near Hume Road, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/151242

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 both sides of part of Austin and Cameron Streets in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from a local resident on Austin Street, who expressed safety concerns.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve the forward sight lines of drivers using Austin and Cameron Streets, as well as the sight lines from some driveway locations.

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 southwest side of Cameron Street commencing at appoint 20 metres southeast of its intersection with Ingoldsby Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the northeast side of Cameron Street commencing at appoint 20 metres southeast of its intersection with Ingoldsby Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the southeast side of Austin Street commencing at a point 33m north east of its intersection with Hume Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the northwest side of Austin Street commencing at a point 33m north east of its intersection with Hume Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 –  Provide No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the forward sight lines for drivers using Cameron and Austin Streets

·     Improves the sight lines for residents leaving their driveways

·     Improves the road space available for large vehicles such as refuse trucks and reduces the risk of a collision with an opposing vehicle

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in some displacement of on-street parking

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local residents’ association expressed concerns about their line of sight whilst turning from their driveway at a bend location on Austin Street, as well as the safety concerns whilst driving along the two bends on this street.  This was often caused by drivers parking on-street at the bend locations.

5.2       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, to evaluate the situation.  It was apparent that most vehicles parked as close to their own property as possible. On occasion, this resulted in on-street parking requiring drivers to drive over the centre line. Attachment C shows parking that is taking place in these areas. Whilst this is a common and acceptable situation on many residential streets, three issues are of concern:

·   There are two right angled bends in short succession, which have limited forward visibility

·   There are property accesses at the bend locations, some servicing multiple addresses

·   Large vehicles were observed to use the street occasionally as there are commercial uses nearby; due to their size, these vehicles often have to drive over the centre of the two bends

5.3       Staff also checked the crash history of this area. Between 2011 and 2015 one crash was recorded in 2015 which involved a car losing control whilst turning at the Austin St/Hume Rd intersection, resulting in a minor injury.

5.4       Consequently, staff have recommended parking restrictions at the bend locations, to address these issues and improve safety in this area.

5.5       Staff are aware of some potential inconvenience to residents and their visitors, however, the spaces that would be removed are only in the bend locations and are intended to be in the best interests of improving road safety on the whole street.

5.6       All the properties in this area have at least 2 off street parking spaces, as well as garages or car ports. Consequently there is already substantial parking provision in this area and therefore the displacement of parking is only expected to be minor.

5.7       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve the safety on these streets by improving sight lines.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the Cameron and Austin Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners on Cameron Street and Austin Street between Ingoldsby Street and 23 Austin Street (similar to the extent shown in Attachment A). 

6.5       Five responses were received, of which 4 were fully in support. One response (from No.2 Austin St) was mainly in support though requested an amendment to remove the section outside no.2 Austin Street, as it is used by their visitors. Staff have considered this request, though consider that the restriction is still warranted, as parked vehicles at this location will force drivers to drive over the centre line at a bend location. Consequently the proposal has not been amended.

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 - $600 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

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the forward sight lines for drivers using Cameron and Austin Streets

·     Improves the sight lines for residents leaving their driveways

·   Improves the road space available for large vehicles such as refuse trucks and reduces the risk of a collision with an opposing vehicle

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in some displacement of on-street 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 improving road safety in the local area

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety needs of the nearby residents.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Austin St location plan

22

b

Austin St NSRs site plan

23

c

Austin St site photos

24

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

9.        31 Saxon Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

18/114896

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of P30 restrictions on the west side of Saxon 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 Saxon 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 on the west side of Saxon Street commencing at a point 6 metres south of its intersection with Essex Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44 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, visitors, suppliers and couriers to the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces all day parking to another location.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business owner located on Saxon Street requested a change to the existing restrictions near their property. The original request related to two spaces. The problem was described as drivers parking all day at this location which was presenting difficulties for customers, visitors and couriers in the area. In some cases, double parking occurred as the nearest opportunities were too far away.

5.2       Consequently, parking restrictions have been requested to improve short stay parking opportunities at this location.  A 30 minute restriction was indicated to be appropriate for typical demands.

5.3       Staff visited the site to examine the situation. At present parking is completely unrestricted on all of Saxon Street and nearby Essex Street. Most businesses also have some parking or loading space on their own site. 

5.4       Observations revealed that spaces were in continuous use for most of the day though occasional spaces were noticed to be available north of Essex Street and on Cashel Street.  Consequently the displacement of parking is expected to be accommodated a relatively short distance away.

5.5       Staff consider the request as reasonable and will provide appropriate opportunities for customers at the current land use activity.  The location is also a short walking distance from other businesses on Saxon and Essex Street, who would also benefit from the spaces being available.


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide five car lengths of P30 restriction on the west side of Saxon 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 nearest 10 properties on Saxon Street and Essex Street.

6.5       No letters of objection were received.  A response was received by the owners of 23-25 Saxon Street who requested an amendment. They supported the original proposal of two spaces, though after their own discussions with the operators at 23-25, they requested that the restriction be extended to the frontage of these properties as well, resulting in 5 spaces in the final proposal. 

6.6       This was considered reasonable as it matches the local needs and that it is also close to other businesses on Essex and Saxon Street, who will also attract visitors, customers and couriers.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $500 to provide two signs on new sign 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 parking opportunity for customers, visitors, suppliers and couriers at the nearby businesses

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces all day parking to another location

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for providing 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

Saxon St P30 site plan

30

b

Saxon St 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

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

10.    180 Avonside Drive, Avonside - Proposed Extension to School Bus Parking Area

Reference:

17/1440196

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 extension of a school bus parking area on the east side of Avonside Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from Avonside Girls’ High School.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide increased space for school buses 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 all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Avonside Drove commencing at its intersection with Cowlishaw Street up to the intersection with Woodham Road be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 18 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 37 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be designated for the parking of school buses, coaches and shuttles only on the east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 55 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 143 metres. This restriction to apply between the hours of 2.00pm to 3.30pm on school days only.

4.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be designated for the parking of school buses, coaches and shuttles only on the east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 205 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. This restriction to apply between the hours of 2.00pm to 3.30pm on school days only.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 224 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending up to its intersection with Woodham Road.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Provide an extended school bus parking area (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 space for school buses at the appropriate time period

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Avonside Girls’ High School have requested increased provision for their school buses which park on the east side of Avonside Drive between Cowlishaw Street and the main school entrance.

5.2       At present there is an existing yellow marked bus parking area north of the main entrance which is sufficient for four buses. The school currently has six buses that consistently use this area. On occasions the additional buses have to double park on Avonside Drive, causing operational difficulties and safety issues in this area.

5.3       The request is for a southern extension to this bay, which would consist of two roughly equal sections either side of the school entrance.

5.4       Staff agree that this would be appropriate as it is consistent with the existing bus locations and ensures that student passengers do not need to cross Avonside Drive. 

5.5       This area currently has no parking restrictions and is used by staff and students at the school. Avonside Girls’ High School are scheduled to vacate the site in early 2019 and relocate to their new site in Burwood, though the site is proposed to be used from 2019 on a temporary basis by Linwood College.

5.6       The proposal will result in some displacement of all day parking. Avonside Drive has unrestricted parking on its west (Avon river) side and is adjacent to Cowlishaw Street which despite located within a designated red zone, is accessible and provides unrestricted parking opportunities. It is therefore expected that any displaced parking will be accommodated at nearby areas.

5.7       The proposed extension to the school bus parking area will provide increased capacity for school buses at a location that is convenient for passengers and bus drivers to use. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide an extension to the existing school bus parking area (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide a southern extension to the existing school bus parking area on the east side of Avonside Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Only Avonside Girls’ High School has been consulted, as the proposal only affects their frontage, the parked vehicles affected will be school staff or students and the adjacent site is red zoned.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $600 to provide road markings together with installing one sign on an existing street lighting column.

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

6.8       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.9       Part 1, clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides increased parking space for school buses at the appropriate time period

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces all day parking to another location

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for providing the type of restrictions to correspond with the school’s operational 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 Avonside Girls School.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

180 Avonside Drive bus parking area site plan

38

b

180 Avonside dr location plan

39

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

11.    Update on Ely Street within the Living Streets programme

Reference:

18/192024

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes

 

 

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 receive an update on Ely Street within the Living Streets programme

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board request for information LCHB/2017/00212

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by reference to minor safety improvements protocol

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.         Note staff actions to address resident concerns regarding on-street parking and visibility for vehicles turning out of Ely Street onto Madras Street.

2.         Note limited budget for ‘Living Streets’ street renewals and multi criteria analysis review underway to prioritise target streets.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Area Engineer received requests from residents to formalise the on street parking behaviour on Ely Street. Concerns were also expressed by residents regarding visibility for vehicles turning out of Ely Street onto Madras Street. Sight lines were impeded by parked vehicles on the east side of Madras Street, a short distance south of Ely Street.

4.2       As a solution to this concern, the no stopping lines on the east side, of Madras Street, south of Ely Street, Moa Place and Melrose Streets have been approved to be extended. This improves sight lines for turning vehicle and addresses this safety concerns.

4.3       A separate request related to the driveways of some resident being partly blocked by parallel parking. Consequently, parking ticks were painted in front of Number 51, on the south side of Ely Street to show the appropriate extents of parallel parking in that location.

A new footpath parking limit time was also put in on the north side of Ely Street, again to deter other vehicles from blocking a driveway and new arrowhead marking opposite No. 38, to ease manoeuvring to and from this address.  

4.4       Parking restrictions were not considered appropriate on the residential streets themselves which are central city higher density residential areas. Nor has there have been any requests for formal residents parking, since all properties appear to have at least one parking space available. Consequently this not been considered at this stage.

4.5       Formalising current driver behaviour with on-street car parking markings are a temporary interim measure to minimise vehicle conflict. While formalising current parking behaviours may not significantly impact liveability in the environs, these measures clarify parking locations and reduce conflict in the existing road environment between vehicles accessing property and vehicles parking on-street.

4.6       The existing provision of alternate on-street parking on both sides of the streets can have a traffic calming effect and is expected to be retained in the interests of local convenience and maintaining safe operating speeds.

5.   Context/Background

Residential Central City context

5.1       Ely Street is located in the Residential Central City Living Zone under the Replacement District Plan. It is within the optimum 10 – 15 minutes walking accessibility to the CBD. Ely Streets is close to the emerging Eastern Frame residential exemplar development with ‘Living Streets’ design elements taken from the ‘Streets and Spaces Guide for Central City’.

5.2       Under the RDP and New Road Classification Draft Street Design Standards if this were a new development this street should have footpaths on either side. However, the street width is approximately 11m boundary to boundary at the widest Madras Street end, down to 6m at the exit-only Salisbury end of Ely Street. In theory this 3.7m width of shared car parking and footpath on the north side of Ely Street would allow for combined parking and footpath provision, however the current layout prohibits this (due to existing trees and threshold treatment on Madras Street, therefore no continuous pedestrian facility is possible). To optimise the ‘Living Streets’ potential on this East/West stretch of Ely Street investigations could be made to making the design more consistent between the Madras end of the street and the Salisbury Street exit. Design considerations such as alternating parking on either side of the street to facilitate traffic calming and other enhancements to formalise a slow speed shared zone more in line with the North-South end of Ely Street. 

Living Streets Programme

5.3       As recommended to the ITE committee 15/2/2018 the Living Streets programme requires a more rigorous multi criteria analysis to prioritise treatments. For street renewals, asset condition as well as RDP zoning will be needed to prioritise the limited street asset renewal budget. Available funds are currently limited to between one and three streets to be per year. 

5.4       It should be noted that for new street builds ‘Living Streets’ design elements are now standard practise. So, while streets within the central city residential living zone are ideally situated for targeted amenity and liveability improvements to enhance walkability given their population density and proximity to the CBD, asset condition remains a key criteria for street renewals. Ely Street is not currently on any street asset renewal programme.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Madras No Stopping Markings

44

b

Ely Street Markings

45

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Trudy Jones - Transport Planner, Sustainable Transport

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

12.    Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction.

Reference:

18/23292

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

9416428

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note

1.1       The Board previously considered this report at its 26 February 2018 meeting.  It was decided to let the report lie on the table until staff provide further advice on changing the time limit of the car parks.

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       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

2.2       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.

3.   Significance

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

3.1.2   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.

3.1.3   2.1.2 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

4.   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.

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

5.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – do nothing

5.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

5.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

·     Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries.

5.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no disadvantages identified with this option

 

6.   Context/Background

Hagley Park Electric Vehicle parking Station Restrictions

6.1       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.

6.2       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.

6.3       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.

6.4       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.

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

Option Description

7.1       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.

7.2       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.

7.3       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.

7.4       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

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       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

7.8       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

7.9       This option is  with Council’s Plans and Policies

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation - $200.00

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

7.12    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget

Legal Implications

7.13    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.

7.14    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.

7.15    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

7.16    Not applicable

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

7.18    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries

·   Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No Identified disadvantages

8.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       See 6.8 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – N/A

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

8.8       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

8.9       See 6.13 to 6.15 above

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    N/A

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

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

8.14    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

52

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

13.    Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration

Reference:

18/166207

Presenter(s):

Russel Wedge

 

 

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 Stabilisation and Repair option for Penfold’s Cob Cottage.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolution (LCHB/2017/00191):

Request that staff report to a Board meeting in February 2018 on the removal of Penfold’s Cob Cottage from the Council’s “list 3” of heritage buildings, noting the extensive community consultation and work to date on this project.

1.3       Further to the above resolution a memo was sent to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 14 February 2017, Penfold’s Cob Cottage – Council Resolution advising a report would be presented to the Board for its March 2018 meeting.

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 the limited group of residents affected in relation to the Christchurch district, and the relatively low risk of implementing the recommendations.

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 Option 1 to stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric of Penfold’s Cob Cottage and glaze lost areas.

a.         Work with Ferrymead Park Limited to develop a cob trail and cob events to link the Cottage with Ferrymead Park.

b.         Work with Ngāi Tahu and the community to develop innovative interpretation to promote the Cottage.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Garden and Heritage Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.2.10 Garden and Heritage Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean, tidy, safe and functional. Trees, Clocks, fountains and statues are maintained to specifications.

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection Level of Service:

·     Implement a programme to ensure a consistent and broadened level of historic heritage protection within Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City.

·     Provide advice and advocacy on heritage conservation principles and priorities for the district’s historic heritage, both internally and externally.

·     Best practice conservation methodology and heritage asset management practices are implemented for all Council owned heritage assets.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Repair and Stabilise the remaining heritage fabric, with lost areas glazed (Preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Deconstruct and Reconstruct

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The largely intact full cob wall construction to the road frontage and to the side facing Ferrymead Bridge (I.e. the two most publically visible elevations) will be repaired and restored to their pre-earthquake form, allowing two of the four elevations to be seen in their intact and original form.

·     The remaining two elevations which have collapsed will be stabilised and glazed so that the interior of the Cottage would be seen through a protective glass wall to the side and rear.

·     An extremely rare and locally unique example of very early sod construction (c. 1870) and later earth construction over time (1940-1990) will be protected for future generations with no further loss of original fabric. 

·     The key aspects of the heritage significance of the Cottage - historical and social, technological and craftsmanship and landmark values (i.e. the reason for its listing) will be retained and enhanced.

·     The roof and roof structure are retained.

·     This proposal will showcase best practice heritage conservation by the Council, and offer significant education and advocacy opportunities.

·     This proposal supports heritage conservation best practice and the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·     This proposal will engage visitors and involve the community in providing both an authentic visitor experience and interaction with heritage in an innovative new way which is unique in Canterbury.

·     The glazed areas would provide accessible viewing for those who could not previously access the Cottage. 

·     It provides a record of an important historical event, namely the Canterbury earthquakes.

·     This option is the one which the community has demonstrated its support for through the consultation process. See below 6.10 – 6.18.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The landmark and contextual values of the Cottage, which were diminished when it was damaged in the earthquakes, are not fully reinstated.

·     The loss of integrity of the original wall construction as a result of the earthquakes has reduced the ability to convey the architectural value of the Cottage. This option does not reinstate the original wall construction on two elevations.

·     The interior of the Cottage is not physically accessible to the public, although it is visible.

·     The lost chimney (an important part of the building demonstrating a former way of life) is not reinstated.

 

 

5.   Background

Penfold’s Cob Cottage

5.1       James Penfold’s Cottage c. 1870 is located on Scott Park, near Ferrymead Bridge

5.2       For 600 years Ngāi Tahu (and their predecessors Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha) used the present Main Road as a travelling route, a place of settlement and as a significant mahinga kai (resource and food gathering) area.

5.3       It became a key thoroughfare for European settlers in the mid-19th century. James Penfold leased the land in 1870 and built the Cottage using sod blocks. The former captain of the vessel Excelsior, and then labourer on the new railway, lived there with his family until about 1878. They then they moved to Southbridge.

5.4       The Cottage was largely rebuilt by Ernest Parish between 1940 - 44, with help from the Mt Pleasant Burgess’s Association and the Mount Pleasant Boating Club. Unable to find suitable sods, Ernest Parish reconstructed the building in cob, but retained an area of now unique sod construction.

5.5       Two years later Scott Brothers Ltd gave the Cottage and its surroundings to Christchurch City Council for ‘the health, amusement and instruction of the public’.

5.6       The Cottage was again repaired by Ernest Parish in 1948 after it was badly damaged by fire. Further repairs to the Cottage were carried out in the 1980s (cob) and 1990s (clay blocks). This contributes to the social, architectural and technological values of the Cottage as a record of changing building methodologies over time.

5.7       Listed in the Christchurch District Plan as a significant heritage item, the Cottage has architectural and aesthetic significance as 'a rare Christchurch example of an earth building, a method of construction once used quite extensively in Canterbury and Marlborough'. Some original sod courses remain at the lower levels.

5.8       There is considerable heritage value in the stories associated with the Cottage, i.e. its intangible heritage. These stories include its repair and restoration over its history utilising different earth technologies; its association with key local figures, and its association with the 1950 Canterbury Centennial.

5.9       The Cottage was badly damaged in the earthquakes. The chimney collapsed, and two of the four walls partially collapsed and have been stabilised to prevent further damage and loss. The principal, street elevation and left side (facing Ferrymead Bridge) have suffered some damage and require repair and upgrades.


 

6.   Option 1 – Stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric, with lost areas glazed (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The two largely intact elevations to the street and to the left of the Cottage facing Ferrymead Bridge are repaired and upgraded, including replastering and repainting to retain the original pre-earthquake landmark and streetscape values of the Cottage to the public.

6.2       The roof and roof structure will be retained and upgraded.

6.3       The rear and right walls which have collapsed will be stabilised using new technologies. They will then be enclosed in glass to allow the remaining areas of original walls to be viewed through toughened glass panels. This will enable visitors to view the interior of the building and offers innovative opportunities for interpretation. 

6.4       The collapsed chimney will not be rebuilt.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       This option does involve a significant decision which could specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions as the Cottage is located within an area called Ōhikaparuparu which is of great cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu whānui.

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       Community consultation was undertaken from 12 July until 14 August 2017. During that time two drop-in sessions were held at the Mount Pleasant Yacht Club near the Cottage.

6.9       Information about the project was sent the community groups in Ferrymead, Heathcote Valley, Mount Pleasant, Redcliffs and Sumner, as well as the wider heritage community and local libraries.

6.10    Forty submissions were received during the consultation phase. Thirty two (80 per cent), supported the stabilise or repair option, six (15 per cent) opposed this option, and two submitters (five per cent) chose the ‘have concerns’ response.

6.11    The project was paused in October 2017 while staff collated funding information relating to earthquake repairs to heritage buildings across the city for the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. In November submitters were advised that the project had been put on hold and were referred to the Council’s have your say site which included an update and a link to all submissions and project team responses.

6.12    The project was reactivated in February 2018 following a Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolution seeking to remove Penfold’s Cob Cottage from the list of heritage buildings for which the Council is currently seeking expressions of interest from the community.

6.13    Prior to community consultation the Council’s project team engaged with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT) to better understand the context of the Cottage and the area’s significance to early Maori. The area’s cultural values were highlighted in a report by MKT for an Archaeological Authority before drainage works were undertaken around the Cottage last year.

6.14    Submitters who strongly supported the stabilise and repair option emphasised the importance of retaining as much of the Cottage’s original sod and cob fabric as possible, and retaining the landmark building to keep its history alive. One submitter said she believed it was the only remaining sod Cottage in Christchurch. “I remember as a child being driven past and at times having to stop and peer in its windows, a real fairytale Cottage. The proportions and scale of this building have become a rarity in this day and age,” she commented. “It gives the opportunity to tell the stories linked to the area, the people involved and their lives from the Penfold family through to Ernie Parish.”

6.15    Six submitters are related to Ernie Parish, who twice organised the restoration of the Cottage in the 1940s, the second time after a fire. Two granddaughters commented that later he spent many Sundays telling visitors and locals about the history of the Cottage which was a memorial to the Canterbury pioneers. One of them added: “He would be so happy to know of the Council’s plans to repair and stabilise the Cottage. It was important to him that the Cottage be preserved for future generations to enjoy and learn about our early history,”

6.16    Ferrymead Heritage Park expressed strong support for the stabilisation and repair option saying it would like to integrate the Cottage into its heritage programme. The Education Manager said Penfold’s Cob Cottage could enhance what Ferrymead already has and provide the opportunity to work with a community group to show students not only how this Cottage has been repaired, but to be able to see how it was constructed.

6.17    Heritage New Zealand supported the stabilisation and repair option, saying the proposed modifications would ensure its survival and best protect heritage values.

6.18    The Christchurch Coastal Pathway Group wants to make the Cottage a feature along the pathway. It said it was very keen for the Cottage to be retained, mostly because of its historic value to the local community. As restoration would destroy some of the original fabric of the Cottage, it supports the stabilise and repair option - with graffiti resistant glass and interpretation.

6.19    Submitters representing the Christchurch Civic Trust and the Earth Building Association of New Zealand opposed the preferred stabilisation and repair option as they considered the Cottage should be rebuilt, on suitably enhanced footings, using reworked earth material. The Council’s project team advised them that this approach would destroy the original sod layers and therefore be contrary to the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

6.20    Other concerns expressed by submitters including traffic now passing close by, condensation on the glass, vandalism, ongoing maintenance costs, and lighting spill affecting residents on St Andrews Hill. They were advised that maintenance issues will be addressed when detailed designs are progressed.

6.21    Two submitters believed the Cottage was not original but this view is not supported by available information, including the 1870 deed between James Penfold and the Road Board of the Heathcote County. Another submitter said the stabilisation and repair option was a waste of money.

6.22    Several submitters referred to the need for appropriate planting around the Cottage, with the Coastal Pathway Group saying it could help to maintain this.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.24    Cost of Implementation – a cost estimate of approximately $342,750 excluding GST would be required to repair, upgrade, stabilise and enclose part of the building in toughened glass.  The Programme Manager has indicated that sufficient funds are available to complete the project, based on available information.

6.25    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - these are included in the operational building maintenance budget.

6.26    Funding source – to be funded by existing Capital Delivery (Community) budget.

Legal Implications

6.27    There no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.28    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

6.29    There is minimal risk with enabling the earthquake strengthening to be undertaken and using technology to allow the interior of the Cottage to be seen through protective glass.

Implementation

6.30    Implementation dependencies  - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

6.31    Implementation timeframe - dependent upon scheduling in the LTP.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.32    The advantages of this option include:

·   The largely intact full cob wall construction to the road frontage and to the side facing Ferrymead Bridge (i.e. the two most publically visible elevations) will be repaired and restored to their pre-earthquake form, allowing two of the four elevations to be seen in their intact and original form.

·   An extremely rare and locally unique example of very early sod construction (1860s) and later earth construction over time (1940-1990) will be protected for future generations with no further loss of original fabric. 

·   The key aspects of the heritage significance of the Cottage - historical and social, technological and craftsmanship and landmark values (i.e. the reason for its listing) will be retained and enhanced.

·   The roof and roof structure are retained.

·   This proposal will showcase best practice heritage conservation by Council, and offer enormous education and advocacy opportunities.

·   This proposal supports heritage conservation best practice and the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·   This proposal will engage visitors and involve the community in providing both an authentic visitor experience and interaction with heritage in an innovative new way which is unique in Canterbury.

·   The glazed areas would provide accessible viewing for those who could not previously access the Cottage.

·   It provides a record of an important historical event, namely the Canterbury earthquakes.

·   This option is the one which the community has demonstrated its support for through the consultation process. See above 6.10 – 6.18.

6.33    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The landmark and contextual values of the Cottage, which were diminished when it was damaged in the earthquakes, are not reinstated.

·   The loss of integrity of the original wall construction as a result of the earthquakes has reduced the ability to convey the architectural value of the Cottage. This option does not reinstate the original wall construction on two elevations.

·   The interior of the Cottage is not physically accessible to the public, although it is visible.

·   The lost chimney (an important part of the building demonstrating a former way of life) is not reinstated.

7.   Option 2 – Deconstruct and Reconstruct

Option Description

7.1       Penfold’s Cob Cottage would be fully deconstructed (taken down). It would then be reconstructed using modern technologies to achieve code compliance for a new building. The works would require the Cottage to be rebuilt in largely new materials and significant amounts of the original historic fabric would be removed. The roof structure could be upgraded and reused, the windows and door retained and some cob may be able to be reused as a coating finish. The reconstructed Cottage would be a replica of the original pre-earthquake Cottage.                        

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option option does involve a significant decision which could specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions as the Cottage is located within an area called Ōhikaparuparu which is of great cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu whānui.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Refer to paragraphs 6.8 to 6.22.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies: it would not support heritage conservation best practice or the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory. The reconstructed Cottage may no longer meet the threshold criteria for scheduling in the District Plan, and Heritage Protection Levels of Service would not be met.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Total project cost is expected to be $436,000

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

7.9       Funding source - to be funded through the Long Term Plan process.

Legal Implications

7.10    There no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

7.11    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    The deconstruct and reconstruct option was not supported by most submitters during last year’s consultation process – with 32 submitters indicating they supported stabilisation and repair.  Only two of the six submitters who did not support stabilisation and repair - the Earth Building    Association if New Zealand and the Christchurch Civic Trust - specifically stated it should be rebuilt.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

7.14    Implementation timeframe - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The architectural form of the Cottage is reconstructed to its pre-earthquake state.

·   The chimney could be reinstated.

·   The roof and roof structure are retained and upgraded and the windows and doors re-used.

·   There is the potential that a replica Cottage could make public access possible, allowing for use for example as a museum.

·   Accessible access could be included in the new building.

·   The visual integrity of the complete Cottage would be fully reinstated using replication.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The reconstructed Cottage would need to achieve building code compliance for a new building, meaning much of the original heritage fabric could not be reused.

·   A considerable amount of heritage fabric would be removed during the deconstruction, resulting in a significant loss of historical, social, archaeological, technological and craftsmanship values.

·   The unique remaining piece of the original sod construction would be removed from its original context and location.

·   There is additional loss of the social, historical and technological values with the removal of the 1940's cob construction.

·   The interior of the Cottage would not necessarily be accessible to the public, or have an identified use once repaired.

·   The reconstructed Cottage would be a replica which does not support good heritage conservation practice or the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·   The resource consent required for the proposal may not be supported by Council staff, given the potential significant loss of heritage fabric and values.

·   The reconstructed Cottage may no longer meet the threshold criteria for scheduling in the District Plan.

·   Council would not be showcasing best conservation practice or fulfilling its role in protecting heritage for future generations.

·   This option does not have community support. Only two of the six submitters who did not support stabilisation and repair - the Earth Building Association if New Zealand and the Christchurch Civic Trust - specifically stated it should be rebuilt.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Penfold's Cob Cottage: submissions and responses

62

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

14.    Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan

Reference:

18/37131

Contact:

Kirsty Mahoney

kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5330

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the outcome of community consultation, and to request that the Board approve the detailed design and construction of the Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project (FR4), in general, and for the Board to request the Council to approve the special vehicle lanes.  This project is one of the projects listed in the Ferry Road Master Plan 2014.

1.2       This report is staff generated, following the completion of consultation on the project. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) if the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Community Board meeting of the 26th February 2017; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 Applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the resolution as approved.

That the Linwood - Central - Heathcote Community Board, recommends to Council:

1.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 m, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

2.         Approve that the pathway on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance 70.5 metres west of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 m, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

3.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

4.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 150 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

5.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

6.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

7.         Approve that a signalised pedestrian and bicycle crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Ferry Road, located at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street, as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

8.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres. Note 1 applies.

9.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

10.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres. Note 1 applies.

11.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 120 metres. Note 1 applies.

12.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 applies.

13.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 1 applies.

14.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 23 metres. Note 1 applies.

15.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 1 applies.

16.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres. Note 1 applies.

17.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

18.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, between its intersection with Hopkins Street and its intersection with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

19.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

20.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Hopkins Street. Note 1 applies.

21.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 60 meters west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and continuing in a westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 106 metres west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes.

24.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 48 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

26.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 18 metre east of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 70.5 meters west of its intersection with Smith Street and continuing in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 21 metres. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport Act – Road User Rule: 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at point 21 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.  Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at a distance of 29 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of three minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

33.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at a distance of 12 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of thirty minutes. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Hopkins Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

38.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Smith Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

39.       Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and the creation of a pedestrian refuge on Ferry Road as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

 

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: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Signalised Crossing (preferred option). The preferred option is to remove the existing pedestrian zebra crossings on Ferry Road outside Te Waka Unua School and to the west of Smith Street, and replace these crossing points with a signalised pedestrian crossing, and a pedestrian refuge island respectively; narrow the intersection of Hopkins Street with Ferry Road to 8 metres wide, and install a 3.5m wide shared path leading to and from the signalised pedestrian crossing.

·     Option 2 – Signalised Crossing, including Bus Lanes. An alternative option investigated sought to remove the existing pedestrian crossing outside Te Waka School and to the west of Smith Street, and replace these crossing points with a signalised pedestrian crossing, and a pedestrian refuge island respectively, and install bus lanes leading to and from the signalised crossing point.

·     Option 3 – Do Nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improved pedestrian environment

·     Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR)

·     Improved safety for vulnerable users

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of one on-street car park outside PKs Dairy at 448 Ferry Road

·     Loss of two on-street car parks outside Mary Dixon Park.

 

5.   Context/Background

Ferry Road Master Plan

5.1       The Ferry Road Master Plan identifies the need to upgrade the existing crossings and parking provision to improve circulation for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers around the cluster of educational and recreational facilities near Te Waka Unua School.

5.2       The key objectives of the project are to improve the pedestrian and cycle environment, and increase parking, particularly in the area of Woolston Park, if required.

Existing Environment

5.3       Te Waka Unua School is located adjacent to Woolston Park, and is bounded along two frontages by Ferry Road and Hopkins Street.

5.4       There are two existing pedestrian zebra crossings located 120 metres apart, outside Te Waka Unua School on Ferry Road, and to the west of Smith Street on Ferry Road. Pedestrian counts have been undertaken between 2pm and 3pm for both pedestrian crossing locations, and the surveys show that the number of pedestrians crossing does not meet the warrant of 50 pedestrians per hour.  At school drop off and pick up times, the zebra crossing outside Te Waka Unua School is operated by a school patrol.  This crossing has been surveyed during the school pick up time, and the volume of pedestrians crossing during this time period is significant.

5.5       Commuter cyclists currently use on-road cycle lanes along Ferry Road to travel to and from the city, which are currently 1.2 metres wide.  North of Ferry Road there is the Rapanui / Shag Rock MCR on Linwood Avenue, and to the south there is the Heathcote Expressway MCR on Mackenzie Avenue.  Hopkins Street and Smith Street provide a strong link between these two MCRs. 

5.6       One of the objectives of the Ferry Road Master Plan is to investigate the current parking demand in the area, and increase parking opportunities as required.

5.7       A parking study has been carried out, and two surveys were completed to allow an understanding of what occurs in this area during the week when there is a parking demand from Te Waka Unua School, and at the weekend to determine the parking demand from the recreational use of Woolston Park.

5.8       With respect to the school parking, there were clear peaks in the parking demand on Ferry Road around school drop off and pick up times.   However, although there was a peak during the school hours, the car parking occupancy never went over 40% on Ferry Road.  All of this parking is located in what is considered an acceptable walking distance of less than 400 metres.  There was a high demand on Hopkins Street, and in the school rush more cars were parking than there was capacity for with either double parking or parking over driveways occurring.  This high demand is concentrated in the initial section of Hopkins Street between Ferry Road and Hobson Street.

5.9       At the weekend, the parking demand does differ to the weekday; however, parking occupancy is still low.  The parking demand on the side streets peaks at approximately 33% of the available spaces, and on Ferry Road it peaks at about 40%.  The parking duration differs between the two study periods, with people tending to stay longer on the weekend.

5.10    Based on the results of the parking survey, it is considered that there is no current need to increase parking supply in the vicinity of Te Waka Unua School or the Woolston Park playing fields.

5.11    A crash analysis has been carried out for the five year period (2012-2016) between Tilford Street and the pedestrian crossing to the west of Smith Street.  During the five year study period, there were a total of 23 crashes, comprising of 13 non-injury crashes, eight minor injury crashes, and two serious injury crashes.  There were no fatal crashes during this time period.  Of the 23 crashes, 14 were rear end / obstruction crashes, four were pedestrian crashes, three were loss of control, and two were crossing / turning crashes.

5.12    Of the four pedestrian crashes during the study period, three of these were minor and one was a serious injury crash.  There was only one cyclist crash recorded during the study period, which was a serious injury crash at the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road.

5.13    There were 17 crashes involving only vehicles, of which 13 were rear end / obstruction crashes, and ten of these involved the pedestrian crossings.

6.   Option 1 – Signalised Crossing at Te Waka Unua School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option includes:

6.1.1   Removing the zebra crossing west of Smith Street and replacing with a pedestrian refuge, due to the low pedestrian counts.

6.1.2   Signalising the eastern zebra crossing, incorporating a cycle crossing.

6.1.3   Shared paths on the lead in to the signalised crossing to allow cyclists to access the crossing, and this includes widening the footpath.

6.1.4   Narrowing the intersection of Hopkins Street with Ferry Road to increase landscaping and calm traffic using Hopkins Street where there are large pedestrian numbers.  This reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians from 14 metres to 9 metres.

6.1.5   No alteration of the existing parking availability, other than what is required for the installation of the shared path and the signalised pedestrian crossing.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance include distribution of a consultation leaflet to affected stakeholders, residents, businesses, absentee owners and community groups within the area of the project; and receipt of feedback.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Early engagement discussions with Te Waka Unua School and Woolston Community Centre helped to inform the Have Your Say community consultation undertaken between 22 November 2017 and 13 December 2017.  In particular, discussions prior to and during the consultation period focused on the need for a safer crossing point on Ferry Road outside Te Waka Unua School.

6.6       Approximately 400 leaflets were delivered to the properties, both residential and business, located in the surrounding streets to Woolston Park and Te Waka Unua School.  The leaflet delivery was supplemented by the installation of a corflute sign and leaflet holder located on the Ferry Road frontage of Te Waka Unua School, as well as stakeholder and absentee owner distribution and online consultation.

6.7       During the consultation period, a well-attended drop-in information session was held in the grounds of Te Waka Unua School on 29 November 2017, leading to further discussion and meetings with key affected properties such as businesses near Smith Street, and the Woolston Development Project.

6.8       A total of 34 submissions were received by the close of the consultation period on 13 December 2017.  Sixteen were in support of the proposal, and fourteen were in support with some concerns raised.  Two submitters (including Spokes Canterbury) provided comments only, and two submitters indicated that they do not support the proposal.

6.9       Submitters in support included Kimihia Parents’ College and Environment Canterbury.  Submitters in support with concerns raised included Christchurch District Health Board (CDHB), PKs Dairy, Te Waka Unua School, Woolston Development Project, and Woolston Community Association.

Consultation Feedback and Project Team Responses

6.10    There was general support for the safety and access benefits of the proposed signalised pedestrian crossing.  However, two submitters requested changes to the location of the signalised crossing point – one closer to the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road, and the other (Principal of Te Waka Unua School) further away from the risks associated with the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road, towards Woolston, to accommodate the school’s pedestrian desire line and for better spacing from the Smith Street crossing.  The project team has considered the alternative locations for a signalised crossing, and the preferred option is considered to be the best location for the installation of the signalised crossing, given the number of driveways in the vicinity, the proximity of the various user groups, the classification of the side streets as local roads, which would not be signalised, and the available budget for the project.  It is noted that traffic signals are not installed on local roads, as this would attract more traffic to use the local road (i.e. Hopkins Street); would cause greater delays along Ferry Road; and, would disadvantage users of the pedestrian crossing, which is one of the key objectives of this project.

6.11    Environment Canterbury supported the wider shared footpath, the new signalised pedestrian crossing, and the pedestrian refuge on Ferry Road to the west of Smith Street, for Purple Line passengers.  Environment Canterbury also supported the pedestrian refuge island, which will allow traffic to keep flowing.  However, CDHB strongly requested the retention of the pedestrian zebra crossing to the west of Smith Street on Ferry Road, particularly given the location of a preschool in Smith Street.  It is proposed to remove the pedestrian zebra crossing to the west of Smith Street and replace this with a pedestrian refuge island.  The pedestrian survey undertaken indicates that low pedestrian numbers using this crossing do not warrant a zebra pedestrian crossing, and it is considered that the refuge island will provide a safer crossing point at peak times than the existing zebra crossing.

6.12    Four submitters expressed concerns about safety and access issues associated with the proposed narrowing of Hopkins Street at the intersection with Ferry Road.  These concerns included how this narrowing would affect school drop-off and pick-up as many parents prefer to use Hopkins Street for this purpose, and experience issues when trying to exit from Hopkins Street onto Ferry Road at peak times.  The project team has recommended that the western lane on Hopkins Street be widened from 3 metres to 5 metres as a result of consultation, which would increase the intersection width at Hopkins Street / Ferry Road to 9 metres.  This will allow space for two informal lanes of traffic to form at peak times, allowing both a left and right turn exit from Hopkins Street onto Ferry Road.

6.13    Two submitters including the CDHB, requested a 40kph speed limit in the project area, one stipulating, along with another individual submitter that Ferry Road is not narrowed. 

6.14    In response to the request for a 40kph speed limit, the project team notes that there are several criteria that must be met to implement a 40 kph speed limit.  At this location, it is not proposed as these criteria cannot be met.  In particular, there are existing safe facilities in place for groups of pedestrians to cross Ferry Road.  The preferred option enhances this with the provision of a signalised crossing point, which allows for groups of pedestrians to safely cross Ferry Road.  Additionally, the median speed environment on weekdays (Monday to Friday) has been recorded at 50kph (in November 2017), which is not high enough to warrant introducing a lower speed environment.

6.15    The project team notes that Ferry Road will be narrowed as part of the preferred option with the removal of on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the signalised crossing only.  The traffic lane widths are 3.2 metres wide, and the cycle lanes are 1.6 metres wide in the area of the signalised crossing with a 3.5 metre wide shared pathway on either side of the road.  The flush median strip in the centre of the road is 1.2 metres wide, which provides a total carriageway width of 10.8 metres, and 7 metres of shared pathway.

6.16    There was a request for disabled parking access to Woolston Community Centre, and an objection from the Woolston Development Project about further restrictions to access that would result from the proposed loss of parking outside their facility, particularly for elderly and mobility impaired users.  In addition, a retail business on the corner of Smith Street was opposed to the loss of on-street adjacent parking on Ferry Road.  This submitter also raised concerns about the effects of construction on their business, having already been adversely affected by recent works at Smith Street.

6.17    The project team has investigated the inclusion of a mobility parking space on Hopkins Street near the intersection with Ferry Road, and this has been included as a result of consultation.  A mobility parking space on Ferry Road is not considered safe due to the available width for parking, combined with adjacent traffic volumes and the on-street cycle lane.  A traffic volume count undertaken between 9 November and 17 November 2017 indicates a weekday average peak total of 1580 vehicles along Ferry Road. 

6.18    An additional P10 parking space will be added just to the west of PKs Dairy to provide on-street parking for dairy users, as a result of consultation.

6.19    The parking survey carried out during the scheme design phase indicates that there is adequate parking available along both sides of Ferry Road during the day.  The project team has investigated the potential for time-restricted on-street parking spaces to assist with the parking needs of the Woolston Development Project, as well as the retail business on the corner of Smith Street and Ferry Road.  A P30 is proposed on Smith Street to provide on-street parking for the retail business at the corner of Smith Street and Ferry Road, as a result of consultation.  There is insufficient safe on-street parking space available directly outside the business on Ferry Road.  Based on the parking survey, and the availability of on-street parking along Ferry Road during the day, no further time restrictions are proposed.

6.20    A submitter raised concerns about access and parking for their home in the project area in Ferry Road.  The project team notes that on-street car parking is still available for this submitter, and the median is a flush median (i.e. white painted road marking), so this can be driven across allowing access to and from the submitter’s home.

6.21    One submitter raised a concern that the alignment of westbound traffic and the cycle lane will push cyclists into the live traffic lane and suggested removal or indentation of parking, or removal or reduction of the kerb build-out on the northern side of Ferry Road.  Another submitter requested an extension of the shared path to the entrance of Woolston Park. 

6.22    The project team has checked this alignment, and confirms that it has been designed to meet the requirements for a 50kph speed environment.

6.23    The project team has investigated the cost of extending the shared pathway to Woolston Park, and this is beyond the scope of the project budget.  It is also noted that the request for sharrows to be used at this location is not considered appropriate, as sharrows are used on cycleways rather than shared paths.

6.24    One submitter considers that separated cycleways are needed everywhere throughout the city and should take priority over grass berms; however, another submitter does not see the need for a shared path and a cycleway outside Te Waka Unua School, where the former creates a risk for pedestrians.

6.25    The project team notes that green paint will be installed across the intersections and at the approach and departure from the crossing points (i.e. at the pedestrian refuge island and signalised crossing).  Cycle lanes will be 1.8 metres wide, except in the vicinity of the signalised crossing where there is no on-street car parking, and the cycle lanes will be 1.6 metres wide.  Commuter cyclists along Ferry Road are anticipated to use the on-road cycle lane.  Recreational cyclists and school users are anticipated to use the shared pathway when travelling to / from Te Waka Unua School, Woolston Park and in the future as a link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock MCR, and the Heathcote Expressway MCR.

6.26    One submitter requested a bus shelter to be installed at 481 Ferry Road.  Kimihia Parents’ College requested more visible smoke free signage in adjacent green space.  These requests will be forwarded to the relevant Council staff to investigate.

6.27    In summary, the key changes to the scheme plan as a result of the consultation include:

·   Widening of the intersection at Hopkins Street to 9 metres, with a 5-metre wide traffic lane exiting Hopkins Street.

·   Implementation of two P10 on-street parking spaces outside and to the west of PKs Dairy.

·   Implementation of one P30 on-street parking space on Smith Street, close to the intersection with Ferry Road.

·   Implementation of one mobility parking space on Hopkins Street, close to the intersection with Ferry Road.

6.28    Submitters have been sent a letter, including a summary of consultation and proposed changes to the plan for consultation, as well as details of the Community Board decision meeting, including how to request speaking rights, should they wish.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.30    Cost of Implementation – the preliminary estimate for this project is $674,001.

6.31    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minor increase in long-term maintenance costs due to the installation of the signals hardware, to be covered by existing maintenance budgets.

6.32    Funding source – This project is funded through the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.  Annual Plan funding is $12,233 in FY17, $74,167 in FY18 and $416,976 in FY19, being a total of $503,376.  A change request to move additional funding into the project from the Masterplan Programme in FY19 will be processed following final approval of the Long Term Plan.  NZTA funding will be sought for eligible activities within this project.

Legal Implications

6.33    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.34    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

6.35    There are no legal implications beyond Christchurch City Council’s rights as the Road Controlling Authority.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.36    There is a risk of pedestrian and cyclist conflict along the shared pathway at either side of the signalised crossing.  There is also a risk of school users not utilising the signalised crossing point.  Both of this risks can be mitigated by education and safety messaging.

6.36.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be low.

6.36.2 Planned treatments include implementation of a signalised pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian refuge island to replace the existing pedestrian zebra crossings to the east and west of Smith Street respectively.  In addition, a shared pathway at the entry / exit for the signalised crossing is proposed.

Implementation

6.37    Implementation timeframe – There is a desire by the community to implement this project as soon as practicable given the crash history and near miss history associated with this crossing point.  It is anticipated that following detailed design and tender processes are carried out, construction could commence in mid-2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.38    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved pedestrian environment

·   Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR)

·   Improved safety for vulnerable users

6.39    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of on-street parking outside 497 and 499 Ferry Road for the signalised crossing.

·   Loss of one on-street car park outside PKs Dairy at 448 Ferry Road.

7.   Option 2 – Signalised Crossing at Te Waka Unua School, including bus lanes

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 includes:

7.1.1   Removing the zebra crossing west of Smith Street and replacing with a pedestrian refuge, due to the low pedestrian counts.

7.1.2   Signalising the eastern zebra crossing, incorporating a cycle crossing.

7.1.3   Shared paths on the lead in to the signalised crossing to allow cyclists to access the crossing, this does not include widening the paths.

7.1.4   Provide bus lanes leading into the zebra crossing to provide for future passenger transport project.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Community views were not obtained on this option.  There were only obtained for the preferred option. There is general support from the community for the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Only the preferred option has been costed.  The installation of bus lanes in addition to the signalised pedestrian crossing and pedestrian refuge island, and shared pathway is anticipated to be a higher cost than the preferred option.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minor increase in long-term maintenance costs due to the installation of the signals hardware, to be covered by existing maintenance budgets.

7.9       Funding source – This project is funded through the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.  Annual Plan funding is $74,167 in 2017/18 and $416,976 in 2018/19. Additional funding will be sought from savings within the programme. NZTA funding will be sought for eligible activities within this project.

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk of pedestrian and cyclist conflict along the shared pathway at either side of the signalised crossing.  There is also a risk of school users not utilising the signalised crossing point.  Both of this risks can be mitigated by education and safety messaging.  

7.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatments are implemented will be low.

7.11.2 Planned treatments include implementation of a signalised pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian refuge island to replace the existing pedestrian zebra crossings to the east and west of Smith Street respectively, along with bus lanes at the approaches to the signalised crossing. 

Implementation

7.12    Implementation timeframe – There is a desire by the community to implement the signalised pedestrian crossing as soon as practicable given the crash history and near miss history associated with this crossing point.  If this option were to be approved, further consultation would be required, and this would mean that construction would be anticipated to start in mid-2019.  It is considered that the implementation of bus lanes is not preferred as observations indicate that there is not a significant delay to buses in this location currently.  It is recommended that any bus lane project should include investigation of the wider corridor to ensure real benefits to public transport are realised along the entire corridor.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved pedestrian environment.

·   Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR).

·   Improved safety for vulnerable users.

·   Provision for any future bus priority scheme, which may occur as this is a core public transport corridor, although there is no current proposal in the LTP for creating bus priority in this location.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists.

·   Loss of approximately 20 on-street parking spaces for the bus lanes, which is all the existing parking along Ferry Road in the vicinity of the signalised pedestrian crossing.

8.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       This option would result in no changes being made to the existing pedestrian crossing points or narrowing of Hopkins Street.  The existing environment would remain in place.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to advise key stakeholders and submitters on the preferred scheme, that the project is not proceeding.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Community view were not requested or obtained on this option.  They were only requested and obtained for the preferred option.  There is general support from the submitters on the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – The Do Nothing option would not meet the Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists.  This option would also be inconsistent with the Ferry Road Master Plan adopted by Council in May 2014.  At its meeting held on 6 July 2017, Council noted that if planning is able to be expedited such that this project is able to be commenced in FY17/18, it requested staff to bring back funding from FY18/19 (CNCL/2017/00161).

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – The Do Nothing option would not provide improvement to the existing unsafe environment for vulnerable users that utilise the crossing points at peak times.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – implement preferred option to meet the Level of Service to protect vulnerable users and minimise the number of near hits and fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists at this location.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

8.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    There is a risk of further crashes and more serious injuries to pedestrians, and cyclists in particular, should the existing environment remain.

8.12    Given the level of support for the preferred option, there is a risk to Council’s reputation if the improvements are not implemented.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Initial cost savings

·   Retention of existing on-street parking in the area of the proposed signalised crossing.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No improvement to the existing pedestrian and cycle environment.

·   None of the other advantages of the preferred option.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Investigations Scheme Plan Woolston Park FR4 tp353101

91

 

 

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

Kirsty Mahoney - Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

15.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

18/11277

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Report for March 2018.

2.         Nominate a Community Board Member to assist the Council’s Heritage Team with the Future of Heritage Community Workshops.

3.         Provide comment on whether the Board support/or not support another temporary alcohol restrictions ban in the current Linwood Village area past the June 2018 timeframe.

4.         Delegate the Community Board Chairperson to authorise the Board’s 2018-2028 Council Draft Long Term Plan submission to be submitted.

5.         Confirm that the Water Fountains ($20,000) and Sumner Changing Sheds ($100,000) projects approved through the 2017/18 Annual Plan are to be implemented.

6.         Reallocate $1,500 granted from its Strengthening Communities Fund 2017/18 to the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated (Community Centre) for Estuary Fest to the Community Centre for funding towards the Administrator’s salary.

7.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline and the Board Report to the Council’s 5 April 2018 meeting.

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Future of Heritage Community Workshops – Work is progressing on the Council’s Future of Heritage Strategy.  The Council’s Heritage Team wish to hold further stakeholder workshops and have Community Board involvement.  The Heritage Team have asked for each Community Board to nominate one member to work with the team.

3.1.2   The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Pride Garden Awards will be held Friday 16 March to acknowledge the award-winning gardeners who go to great effort to enhance the beauty of our city environment, by the pride with which they maintain the attractiveness of their gardens.

3.1.3   Sumner Masterplan Projects – The Board recently requested an update on when the Sumner Masterplan projects for the current financial year would be commencing.  Staff have advised:

Construction for the P1.1 Sumner Village – Wakefield Avenue and Marriner Street is scheduled to begin in May 2018 and will take approximately six months to complete.  Start Work Notices will be distributed prior to construction starting.

3.1.4   Organics Processing Plant Community Liaison Group Meeting – at the Board’s 6 November 2017 meeting the Board requested:

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

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

 

Staff have advised:

The Organics Processing Plant Community Liaison Group meetings will be held on 15 May 2018, 21 August 2018, and 20 November 2018.

 

The process to appoint a Chairperson to the Organics Processing Plant Community Liaison Group under the Group’s Terms of References Independently selected by the Community Liaison Group.  There has been no objections raised to the current Independent Chairperson appointed, Alex Jepson of GHD, who has chaired the last two Community Liaison Group meetings.

 

3.1.5   Woolston Park Playground - at the Board’s 4 December 2017 meeting the Board requested:

Requested staff advice on providing an additional piece of accessible playground equipment for the Woolston Park Playground for the Board to consider funding from the Board’s Discretionary Response Funding.

Three accessible items have been considered as listed below

 

Option

Description

Supply and install total

1.   

Set of Talking Tubes – these can be installed in two locations in the playground with an underground tube between each talking tube. Users can interact by talking and listening through the tubes.

$2996.00

 

 

2.

Cherub Musical Instrument – There are eleven tubular bells and the user has paddles to hit the bells to make music.

$7371.00

3.

Interactive Timber Sound Bridge with rope handrail – An ideal addition to a pathway. The bridge is 2 metres long with 6 bells that users can move to make a tune

$8697.00

 

 

3.1.6   Affordable Housing – at the Board’s 14 February 2018 meeting the Board requested staff advice on the Council’s view of the cost of affordable housing in Christchurch. 

 

Staff have advised:

Affordable housing can be defined in terms of low to middle income households (i.e. those households earning up to 120% of median household income) spending no more than 30% of their gross income on rent or mortgage costs. For those on middle incomes, this can be further defined in tenure terms of a median household income being sufficient to affordably purchase a lower quartile priced house (which stood at $383,000 in mid-2016, meaning that it is borderline affordable to purchase on such an income of about $70,000 within a low interest environment, assuming that standard deposit and bank lending criteria can be met). 

 

Further information can be found in the Council’s Housing Policy (https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/plans-strategies-policies-and-bylaws/policies/community-policies/housing-policy )

 

3.1.7   Shade for Scarborough Playground - Staff have looked into having more shade at Scarborough Playground based on the discussion held with the Board in the past, and to cater for the area where a tree was cut down. Staff are looking into having two to three shade umbrellas: two where the old swings/slide/rocking horse are, and one over the nature play area. The cost of each umbrella is $7,500 installed. Ideally a picnic table would be put under each of the umbrellas (particularly the two where the old swings/slide/rocking horse are). The cost of the tables (including installation on a concrete pad) is about $3,900.

 

·     Total cost of the three additional umbrellas and two additional tables would be $30,300. Staff do not think shade sails would work in this location due to the sandy ground conditions meaning we would need massive foundations to keep the sails under tension so they did not sag.   There are also a lot of pipes in this area so big foundations would be a problem to fit.

3.1.8   Linwood Village Proposal to Extend Timeframe of Temporary Alcohol Ban – the Council put in place a temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village area in December 2017.  Staff are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban and are looking into options as to whether the ban should be continued past its current timeframe. 

·     The Council are gathering information from residents, through a survey (Attachment A), on if the  alcohol ban has been effective in reducing alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, and if residents do or do not support the continuation of the temporary alcohol ban in the area beyond June 2018, and asking if residents would support a permanent alcohol ban in the area.   The survey closes on 15 March 2018.

·     The Board is ask to provide comment on whether the Board supports/or not supports for another temporary alcohol restrictions in the current ban area past the June timeframe.

3.1.9   Matuku Taktako: Sumner Centre Usage - Christchurch City Libraries operates a network of libraries across the city. The network includes a range of library facility sizes and corresponding hours of operation as related to the demographics and any other unique features of the community. Larger suburban libraries with extended collections, services, staffing and hours of operation are generally situated in communities that draw on a greater population base. These include:

·     Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre 

·     South Library and Beckenham Service Centre

·     Upper Riccarton Community and School Library

·     Fendalton Library and Service Centre

·     Linwood Library and Customer Services

·     New Brighton Library

·     Papanui Library and Customer Services.

Neighbourhood Libraries with a smaller footprint, collection size, staffing levels and operating hours are located in communities that draw on a smaller population base. These includes:

·     Lyttelton Library and Customer Desk

·     Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre

·     Redwood Library

·     Parklands Library

·     Spreydon Library

Current Operating Hours

The operating hours of the library at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre are aligned with the current levels of service for the Libraries and Information Unit and are based on the hours of operation for a smaller community. These hours were in place prior to the closure of the previous library in Sumner and are:

·     10:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday to Friday

·     10:00 am – 1.00 pm Saturday.

 

Use of the Library at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre

Pre-schoolers and their care-givers, school groups and Early Childhood Education groups prominently visit the library in the mornings, along with retirees both from the Sumner/Redcliffs’ areas, as well as those visiting from other parts of Christchurch. Students flock to the library in the afternoons and throughout the day adult students undertaking formal study use the library as a quiet space. The library and the facility itself is used by people from all walks of life and from a diversity of age groups.

Statistics

Use of the library at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre is on par with similar sized neighbourhood libraries in terms of overall transactions (issues, visitation, programme attendance and public computer use).

·     Physical book issues for the library at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre are on average 8,000 monthly (similar to Hornby, Parklands, Spreydon and Redwood Libraries)

·     Visitation or foot count for the entire facility is almost 55,215 since opening and on average 10,000 per month

·     There is still a steady stream of new members joining the library. A total of 510 new members have joined since the facility was opened in August 2017.

Consistency of Service Provision

Consistency of staffing across all the hours that the libraries are open, provided by trained and experienced staff is an important principle and practice that enables quality service provision and is a key factor in the current high rates of resident satisfaction. Across some Council libraries volunteers and interns are used for specific supervised tasks including shelving.  They are not trained to deliver the wide range of services provided by library staff, and  do not have access to the Library and Council IT systems necessary to manage core library functions and services. Any departure from current practice would be strongly opposed by the PSA when the work could be provided by paid staff.

Next steps

Staff have received mixed community preferences regarding the library opening hours.  Some requests have been for extending the Saturday library hours and/or opening on a Sunday, whilst other community members are content with the current library hours of operation.

The Libraries and Information Unit does not have funds budgeted for an increase in library hours in the current financial year or the draft LTP 2018-28. Extension of weekend hours of opening would have significant implications for Libraries’ operational budgets and could not be met in the current climate of financial constraint.

 

Staff recommend retaining the status quo for library opening hours for 2018/19 while staff continue to monitor usage and assess community demand for full year to 18 month’s operation.

3.1.10 Board Priorities Action Updates – at the Board’s 2 October 2017 meeting the Board requested staff to list on each Area Report progress on specific Board Projects and Action Requests.  (Attachment B).

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

3.2.1   Environment Canterbury 2018-2028 Draft Long Term Plan – was released for consultation on Tuesday 27 February 2018 and is open for submissions until Monday 26 March 2018.  The Council is submitting on the Draft Plan and the Community Board was requested to forward to staff any points that the Community Board wished to include in the Council’s submission which will be approved at the Council’s 22 March 2018 meeting.

3.2.2   At time of writing this report the following consultation will be open to the community within the Community Board Area:

Proposed Upgrade of Kilmore Street (Colombo Street to Durham Street)

28 February 2018 – 21 March 2018

Richmond Hill Proposed 40km/h Speed Limit

23 February 2018 – 26 March 2018

Heritage Buildings Future Use and Funding Options

16 February 2018 – 29 March 2018

 

3.3       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.3.1   2017-2018 Annual Plan – Board Projects

In its 2017/18 Annual Plan submission to the Council, the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board requested that Council provide some funding towards water fountains in the Central City and changing sheds in Sumner.  The Council allocated $120,000 for Sumner Changing Sheds ($100,000) and water fountains ($20,000) located in the central city next to bike share schemes.

Staff would like the Board to confirm that the Board would like to go ahead with these projects and provide the following advice:

·    $100,000 - Sumner Changing Sheds.  For this project to be carried out there is need for a partner in the community to be identified, and for operational work to be carried out before the actual construction. If the board would like for this project to be implemented, we will need to go through a change request to turn the funds set aside for this project capital to operational to allow for feasibility studies, consultation and other work to be done. 

·    $20,000 - Water Fountains.  The Board requested that water fountains be installed in the central city.  It is estimated that the cost of a water fountain is approximately $5,000.

Staff recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board confirm that it would like for the projects approved through the 2017/18 Annual Plan process to be implemented.

3.3.2   2018-2028 Draft Long Term Plan – the Council at its 21 February 2018 meeting approved the following timeline for the Adoption of the Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Consultation Document available to the public on Friday 9 March 2018;

The period for making submissions will run from 9 March to 5.00pm on 13 April 2018;

For people who wish to, opportunities will be provided for them to present oral submissions;

Oral submissions will be heard between 30 April and 22 May 2018;

All submissions will be considered before the Council meets on 26-27 June 2018 to adopt its Long Term Plan 2018-28.

·     It is suggested that the Board hold a workshop prior to the Board’s 26 March 2018 to formulate the Board’s submission after any workshops/drop ins that have been held in the Board area.  The Board meeting in April 2018 is after the submission period has closed and the Board is asked to consider to delegate to the Board Chairperson to authorise the Board’s 2018-2028 Council Draft Long Term Plan submission to be submitted.

3.4       Board Reporting

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

3.5       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

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

4.   Community Board Plan – Update against Outcomes

4.1       At time of writing this report there is no update.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1   At its 20 September 2017 meeting the Board granted the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated (the Community Centre) $8,500 from its 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund for Administrator’s Salary ($7,500) and Estuary Fest ($1,500). (Attachment C).

·     The Community Centre has recently requested that the Board reallocate the $1,500 for EstFest to the Administrator’s salary as EstFest was not held this year. EstFest was not held as the Community Centre opened in October 2016, and 2017 was the first full year of operation. Committee and staff capacity was taken up with commissioning work for the building and establishing operating policies and procedures.

·     The original staff recommendation to the Board at its 20 September 2017 meeting was that the Board grant $16,500 to the Community Centre for the following.

·    $15,000 – Administrator’s Salary

·    $1,500 – Estuary Fest (EstFest)

·     If the Board decided to reallocate the $1,500 for EstFest to the Administrator’s salary, a total of $9,000 would be granted towards the Administrator’s salary.

Staff recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board reallocate $1,500 granted from its Strengthening Communities Fund 2017/18 to the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated (Community Centre) for Estuary Fest to the Community Centre for funding towards the Administrator’s salary.

5.1.2   At the Board’s 20 September 2017 meeting the following Strengthening Communities Funding Applications were referred to the Community Reliance Partnership Fund and will be put to the Council for consideration.

·     At the Board’s 14 February 2018 meeting the Board granted $11,500 to Avebury House Community Trust and $9,717.46 to Waltham Community Cottage from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.

5.1.3   A report was presented at the Council meeting on 22 February 2018 on the funding request below: (Attachment D).

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

5.2       Other partnerships with the community and organisations

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

5.3       Community Facilities (updates and future plans)

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

·    A Working Group has been established to provide feedback and advice on the architectural scope of work to be included in the Request for Proposal going out to contractors seeking a Design & Build method of project delivery to construct a new building. The Working Group continues to meet bi-weekly.

5.3.2   Woolston Community Library – is currently on track.  The foundation slab is down and all the pre-cast concrete panels are now up.  The timber framing has been pre-cut.  Steel reinforcing was installed the week of 26 February 2018.

·     The consultants for the project are currently working on the final design for the laneway and car park upgrade.

·     Some of the items that were salvaged from the old building are now on site and designs are being worked on to see how they can be re-used in the new building.  The former foundation stone will be placed in part of the new garden.

·     Based on the responses from the Working Group and the Library Committee, and given that the original building was called Woolston Community Library, the consensus is to go with this name for the new facility.

         It was also raised at the Social Community Development and Housing Committee meeting on Tuesday (28 Feb) where the Committee also shared the preference to name the new facility: Woolston Community Library.  The Working Group didn't see the need to go out for public consultation

5.4       Infrastructure projects underway

5.4.1   Linwood/Woolston Pool – the Board approved the consultation documentation for the Linwood/Woolston Pool Site Selection.  The consultation period will be 12 March 2018 – 9 April 2018.

5.5       Events Report back

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

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

6.1       Greater Linwood Community Forum - meets at community venues in Linwood, Bromley, Phillipstown, and Woolston. It provides an opportunity for organisations to share ideas and issues relevant to Greater Linwood, and to develop creative and collaborative local responses, using shared resources. Relevant speakers are invited to address the community organisations who attend.   The Forum meets monthly on a Monday morning; and Community Board members are welcome to attend.

6.2       It’s Great to Live Here Expo - The ‘It’s Great to Live Here’ Expo will be held again this year, during the July school holidays.  The Expo is led by Greater Linwood community groups and organisations, in partnership with the Eastgate Shopping Centre. The Linwood Library is also a key partner in the Expo. The Expo will again be held at Eastgate.  The Expo is an opportunity for Greater Linwood community organisations to acknowledge all that is great about working in the area, and to showcase their work and services.

6.3       Linwood Youth Development (LYD) Project - The position of Linwood Youth Development Worker was established in 2002, and has received ongoing funding and support from the Community Board. Several workers have held the position of LYD worker over a number of years, and in 2016 an evaluation of the role was undertaken.

6.3.1   The evaluation identified the potential to provide coordination, support, and leadership to youth development organisations working in the Greater Linwood area.

6.3.2   In order to progress the project, the Canterbury Youth Workers Collective has agreed to facilitate a networking forum for Greater Linwood youth agencies.

6.3.3   The Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board will be provided with regular updates about the Linwood Youth Development Project. 

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

6.4.1   Roimata will host an outdoor movie night on 17 March to promote environmental awareness and bring the community together. This event is being supported by the Board’s Light Bulb Moments Fund, Christchurch Methodist Mission, ECan, and local businesses.

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

Timeline

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

·    Late-March to late-April – Consultation open.

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

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

6.5       Bromley Community Fair held on Saturday 24 February from 11am – 2pm at the Bromley Community Centre, was once again a huge success. An estimated 1,000 – 1,500 people attendance with high retention throughout the event as families participated in multiple activities and entertainment. The fair was also an opportunity for staff to talk with participants to gain useful insights about local needs, concerns and aspirations.

6.6       Zumba in the Park on Fridays in Doris Lusk Reserve has proven so popular with 50 to 60 participants each week, and successful in meeting its objectives that the programme has been extended until 13 April. In addition to Zumba, other programmes and events are also being considered by a dedicated team at Te Whare Roimata, with support of staff, to celebrate the neighbourhood, increase the positive use and image of Linwood Village, create connections with organisations in the area, and bring the local community together to enjoy a range of activities.

6.7       LYFE 2018 is on Saturday 17 March with the youth crew responsible for planning and delivering LYFE alongside the LYFE Coordinator putting the final touches to the event that will take place in Linwood Park at the later time of 4pm to 8pm.  Youth supported engagement for the Linwood/Woolston Pool will be an important aspect of the event this year.

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

7.1       The next update will be in April 2018.

8.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

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

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

8.1.2   Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $3,100.

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

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter and Survey to Linwood Village Residents on Temporary Alcohol Restrictions  - March 2018

106

b

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

108

c

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Strengthening Communities Fund 2017-18 - Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre & Residents' Association

113

d

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

114

e

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

115

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

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

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 March 2018

 

 

16.  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

14 March 2018

 

 

17.  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

14 March 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

18

Public Excluded Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 26 February 2018

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

19

Linwood Library Location Review

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

Commercial Negotiations

Never to be released