Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 19 June 2018

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre,
Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Fendalton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie Mora

 

 

11 June 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

gary.watson@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/

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board – Community Board Plan 2017-2019

 

Community Outcomes and Priorities

 

1.       Strong Communities

Outcomes for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area:

1.1          A range of social and recreational initiatives which build and develop community wellbeing.

1.2          Culturally inclusive and celebrates diversity.

   

Our Board Priorities are to:

Community

1.3          Support and encourage the involvement of children and young people in all aspects of community life including decision making.

1.4          Support and advocate for initiatives that address poverty issues and improve the well-being of families and individuals.  

1.5          Support and advocate for activities for older adults in the ward to reduce social isolation.

1.6          Advocate for culturally inclusive practices, where diversity is supported. 

1.7          Consider disability access across all projects.

1.8          Ensure partnerships are created and strengthened with community organisations, schools and the University of Canterbury.

1.9          Foster the development of leadership and celebrate this across the wards.  

Community Board Engagement

1.10       Advocate for the promotion and accessibility of the Community Board and its members so as to enhance more active participation and transparency in the Board’s decision-making.

1.11       Supporting and enabling consultation to gain clear views from the community.

Social Wellbeing

1.12       Advocate for safe, well-run and attractive social housing and strategies that reduce homelessness in the city. 

1.13       Support the creation of safe, accessible and connected places for people to meet in the community.

1.14       Support local events and activities that bring communities together.  

1.15       Support innovative projects that enhance social wellbeing.

 

2.       Liveable City

Outcomes for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area:

2.1       Residents feel safe in their communities and neighbourhoods.

2.2       Residents have ready access to parks and greenspace for recreational facilities and activities.

2.3       The cultural, natural and built heritage is acknowledged, valued and enhanced.

2.4       Children are provided with fun and safe environments.

2.5       Community facilities are provided that meet the needs of communities. 

2.6       A safe, efficient and sustainable transport and local roading network.

 

Our Board Priorities are to:

Roading and Transport

2.7       Work with schools and community groups to ensure safe crossings and road networks near schools and along key transit routes. 

2.8       Support public transport and cycling initiatives that promote increased usage.

Planning

2.9       Advocate for improvements to parks, greenspace and recreational facilities. 

2.10    Advocate for the protection of the quality of residential living. 

2.11    Monitor the issues of green field subdivisions and increasing intensification across the ward. 

2.12    Advocate for the community facing the challenges of growth. 

2.13    Advocate and make decisions on effective traffic management measures that contribute to meeting the needs and connectivity of local communities.

2.14    Monitor planning issues and support community concerns through appropriate channels.

 

Community Facilities and Playgrounds 

2.15    Ensure the new Riccarton Community Centre and the Hornby Library and Customer Services and South West Leisure Centre meet the needs of the community.

2.16    Advocate for the timely provision of local facilities to meet the needs of growing local communities.

2.17    Ensure that usage of Council facilities is being optimised.

2.18    Advocate for the provision of quality playgrounds throughout the wards.  

Heritage

2.19    Support and advocate for the enhancement and protection of local heritage assets.

  

3.       Healthy Environment

Outcomes for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area:

3.1       A commitment to protect and improve the local environment.

3.2       Climate change and environmental sustainability is considered by the Community Board in its decision making, including for all new facilities.

 

Our Board Priorities are to:

3.3       Support and advocate to maintain clean drinking water and high standards of air quality.

3.4       Monitor pollution issues, quarrying effects and compliance of consents. 

3.5       Support local communities on land use, and air and water quality issues and where appropriate, advocate for and represent any community concerns arising.

3.6       Monitor and respond on parks and tree issues raised by the community.

3.7       Encourage and support the implementation of local sustainable greenspace use initiatives, for example, food forests and community gardens.

3.8       Support and advocate for initiatives aimed at addressing climate change. 

 

4.       Prosperous Economy

Outcomes for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board area:

4.1       Strong local business communities.

4.2       An environment where innovative projects are trialled and supported.

4.3       Has a strong social enterprise sector.

 

Our Board Priorities are to:

4.4       Continue to liaise with local business networks.

4.5       Support initiatives that promote a wide range of innovative practices. 

4.6       Foster social enterprise initiatives. 

4.7       Advocate for Council rate increases to be kept as low as possible.   

4.8       Support the provision of more affordable and social housing. 

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 5

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 5

B       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13

Staff Reports

C       8.       Eastman Wetland and Sutherlands Basin - Tree Removals....................................... 17

C       9.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Level Crossing Approaches – Road Markings. 65

A       10.     Buchanans Road - Proposed Speed Limit Changes..................................................... 77

C       11.     Proposed Greater Hornby Residents' Association - Recognition.............................. 85

C       12.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund and Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Off the Ground Fund - Establishment........................................ 107

BC     13.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - June 2018............... 117

 

B       14.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 132 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

Mike Mora

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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 29 May 2018,  be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Forum

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

 

The public forum will commence at 4.30pm.

 

4.1

Community Energy Action

Caroline Shone, Chief Executive Officer of Community Energy Action, will provide an update on current services and of work carried out in the Board’s area.

 

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 presented at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 29 May 2018

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Fendalton Service Centre,
Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Fendalton

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Ross McFarlane

Natalie Bryden

Jimmy Chen

Catherine Chu

Anne Galloway

Debbie Mora

 

 

29 May 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

gary.watson@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.   Welcome

Gary Watson, Community Governance Manager, welcomed attendees to the meeting.

2.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00054

That the apologies for absence received from Helen Broughton, Vicki Buck and Mike Mora, and for lateness from Anne Galloway, be accepted.

Natalie Bryden/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

3.   Election of a Chairperson

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00055

That pursuant to Standing Orders 10.1, Ross McFarlane be appointed Chairperson of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting of 29 May 2018.

Natalie Bryden/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

5.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00056

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 15 May 2018, be confirmed.

Catherine Chu/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

 

 

 

6.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

7.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

8.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There were no petitions presented.    

 

9.   Rubicon Place - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00057 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Rubicon Place commencing at its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of seven metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on  the north side of Rubicon Place commencing at a point 61 metres west of its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 52 metres.

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

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Rubicon Place commencing at a point 60 metres west of its intersection with Gilberthorpes Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

5.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in the agenda report, be revoked.

6.         That the resolutions in 1. to 5. above are to take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report, are in place.

Debbie Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

Anne Galloway arrived at 4.37 p.m.

 

 

10. Freyberg Avenue - Proposed P120 - 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday Parking Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00058 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Freyberg Avenue commencing at its intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Freyberg Avenue commencing at its intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes, 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday, on the south side of Freyberg Avenue commencing at a point 21 metres west of its intersection with Deans Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

4.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in the agenda staff report, be revoked.

5.         That the resolutions in 1. to 4. above are to take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report, are in place.

Jimmy Chen/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

11. Tower Street - Proposed No Stopping and P30 Parking Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00059 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to approve:

1.         That under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, No Stopping restrictions are installed on the part of Tower Street as indicated in the agenda attachment Plan TG132753 Issue 1, dated 14 February 2018.

2.         That under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Tower Street as indicated in the agenda attachment Plan TG132753 Issue 1, dated 14 February 2018, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 30 minutes between the hours of 9am and 5pm Monday to Friday.

3.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in the agenda staff report, be revoked.

4.         That resolutions 1. to 3. above are to take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report, are in place.

Debbie Mora/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

 

 

12. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund - Applications - Strikeforce Boxing and Riccarton Leagues Club

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00060 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $3,500 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund to Strikeforce Boxing towards the costs of purchasing training and safety equipment and coaching licenses.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $10,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund to the Riccarton Leagues Club towards the alteration costs of its changing rooms at Crosbie Park.

Anne Galloway/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

13. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - May 2018

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00061  (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part B

The  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report for May 2018.

2.         Receive the information in the staff memorandum regarding Rountree Street and forward the information therein to the Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association.

3.         Receive the information in the staff memorandum regarding the University Parking Plan Review – Area Three consultation outcomes.

4.         Receive the information in the staff memorandum regarding the matter of the Obstruction of Public Access to the Unformed Legal Road at 218 Old Tai Tapu Road and forward the information therein to G and P Hindmarsh.

5.         Receive the 2016-17 Riccarton/Wigram Strengthening Communities Fund Allocations Accountability Report.

The Board asked that its thanks be conveyed to the staff involved for assisting at the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library working-bee held on 12 May 2018.

Anne Galloway/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

 

 

 

14. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Board members exchanged information on matters of current interest.

 

 

15. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2018/00062

Part C

That at 5.03pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 81 to 82 of the agenda, be adopted.

Natalie Bryden/Anne Galloway                                                                                                                               Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 5.05pm.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.05pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

 

Ross MCFARLANE

MEETING Chairperson

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/518419

Presenter:

Peter Dow, Community Board Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Deans Avenue Precinct Society Inc.

Former Blenheim Road Overbridge Site

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decide to:

1.         Receive the correspondence from the Deans Avenue Precinct Society Inc. in relation to the former Blenheim Road overbridge site, and refer the matters raised therein to staff for investigation and response.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Deans Avenue Precinct Society Inc - Correspondence

14

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

8.        Eastman Wetland and Sutherlands Basin - Tree Removals

Reference:

18/481248

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the removal of:

·   Approximately 46 healthy and structurally sound trees plus approximately 455 metres of hedge rows within the Eastman Wetland and the remaining areas of the Sutherlands Basins site.

1.2       Decisions on the removal of healthy and structurally sound trees is delegated to the Community Board, under Part D, sub part 1, 5.15  of the Council’s Delegations Register:

·   “Determine to plant, maintain and remove trees on reserves, parks and roads under the control of the Council within the policy set by the Council."

1.3       The purpose of this report is to also inform the Board regarding the removal of up to 332 trees that are unhealthy or structurally unsound.

1.4       Decisions on the removal of unhealthy and structurally unsound trees and trees causing infrastructure damage is delegated to the Head of Parks, under Part B, sub part 3, 20 Parks/Trees of the Council’s Delegations Register:

·   “In consultation with any other units affected, to authorise the following work on any tree from any reserve, park, open space or road corridor: planting and maintenance; removal of structurally unsound and unhealthy trees, trees causing damage to infrastructure or other safety concerns where there is no viable alternative other than to remove the tree.  The relevant Community Board is to be informed of any removals that have been carried out under this delegation.”

1.5       It is noted that the subject trees are located on former farmland, and the site is not currently a reserve, park or road.  However, the site is Council owned land that will be open to the public once the wetland is developed.

1.6       Landscape plans are still to be finalised for the project but will include the replacement planting of native and exotic specimen trees and increasing the mass native vegetation areas (including the wetland area).  At this stage it is estimated that approximately 12,500 large growing native trees will be planted along with more than 300,000 native plants.

Origin of Report

1.7       This report is staff generated.

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 impact on the surrounding environment and the rural character of the land.

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the removal of approximately 46 trees and 455 metres of hedgerows within Council land, to allow the construction of stormwater management facilities at the following site addresses:

a.         482A, 484 and 600 Cashmere Road

b.         32 Sutherlands Road

c.         368 and 332 Sparks Road

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the tree removals (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Decline the tree removals

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1      The advantages of this option include:

·     Water quality enhancement provided through the creation of treatment basins and wetlands

·     Enables flood protection works to proceed without delay

·     Maximises the flood storage area on the land

·     Indigenous forest and wetland habitat will be established

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of approximately 46 healthy and structurally sound trees, plus 455 metres of hedgerows

·     Immediate loss of tree cover where this occurs

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The sites contain two stormwater facilities proposed in the south west of Christchurch as part of the South West Area Plan 2009.

5.2       The purpose of the facilities is to:

·   Provide flood mitigation for increases in flooding as a result of the earthquakes

·   Meet the South West Christchurch stormwater discharge permit CRC120223 requirements.

5.3       A previous report was presented to the Community Board on 13 February 2018 for the approval of tree removals within the Sutherlands Basins and Sparks Wetland sites (resolution HHRB/2018/00016).  This report relates to the Eastman Wetland site and the remaining areas within the Sutherlands Basins site that were not presented to the Community Board at that meeting due to ongoing design work.

5.4       Although the detailed design for the entire Eastman Wetland area has not been finalised, works within the Eastman site are required to enable the works within the Sutherlands site and the first phase of the Eastman Wetland project to progress.

5.5       The subject trees are on recently purchased Council land at the following site addresses:

·   482A, 484 and 600 Cashmere Road

·   32 Sutherlands Road

·   368 and 332 Sparks Road

5.6       A location plan showing the Eastman Wetland and Sutherlands Basin sites is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Eastman Wetland and Sutherlands Basins Location Plan

5.7       The work areas requiring tree removals will be undertaken in phases due to funding, with the first tree removals likely to take place in late 2018.

5.8       The full landscape plan for this area is still in development as it forms part of the wider Sutherlands/Hoon Hay/Eastman Stormwater Management Area.  A draft layout plan for this area is included as Attachment A.  It is intended to present this to the Community Board for approval of the landscape elements, when completed.

5.9       The implementation of the landscape plans will result in the creation of a significant indigenous forest and wetland habitat, including approximately 12,500 large growing native trees being planted.

5.10    The total numbers of indigenous plants will be in the region of 320,000 to 350,000 (ranging from sedges, rushes, ferns, groundcovers, scramblers, climbers, both small and tall shrubs and small and large or noble trees).

  Tree Removals

5.11    A tree assessment has been carried out within the project areas to assess the condition of the trees, to inform the design, quantify the potential effects and minimise potential adverse effects on trees where possible (refer to Attachment B, tree report from Arbor Vitae Ltd dated 23 May 2018).

5.12    The condition of each tree was evaluated using the Council’s tree assessment system.  During the tree survey, the results for some individual trees were documented but the majority of trees were assessed as groups with estimated quantities and dominant condition ratings. 

5.13    Within the Eastman Wetland site and remaining areas of the Sutherlands Basins site there are approximately 660 trees including 209 healthy and structurally sound trees, plus 665 linear metres of hedgerows.

5.14    The trees are on former farmland, and the majority of the trees were found to be in poor condition.  There are large numbers of trees that are dead or in advanced decline, possibly due to changes in the water table, and large numbers of trees that have poor structural condition.

5.15    None of the trees are listed in the Council’s tree asset database nor are they protected under the rules of the Christchurch District Plan.

5.16    Wherever possible, healthy and structurally sound trees and hedgerows have been incorporated into the design, and it is intended that trees and other vegetation that are retained will receive appropriate physical protection during the implementation of the construction works.

5.17    Trees that have been identified to be retained and removed within the Eastman Wetland and remaining parts of the Sutherlands Basins site include:

·     Trees to be retained

282 trees to be retained, including 163 healthy and structurally sound trees

·     Trees that are likely to be removed
136 trees may require removal (depending upon final design and construction requirements), including
16 healthy and structurally sound trees

·     Trees that will definitely be removed
242 trees to be removed, including
30 healthy and structurally sound trees

5.18    It is possible that up to 378 trees in total may be removed, which includes trees in the following condition:

·     46 healthy and structurally sound trees

·     332 unhealthy and structurally unsound trees

5.19    In addition to the individual trees and groups of trees identified to be retained or removed, the following hedgerows will be retained or removed:

·     80 metres of Macrocarpa hedge in reasonably good condition, to be retained

·     80 metres of Poplar hedgerow in reasonably good condition, to be retained

·     50 metres of Poplar hedgerow/shelter belt in reasonably good condition, to be retained

·     35 metres of Macrocarpa hedge in very poor condition, to be removed

·     330 metres of Hawthorn hedgerow in fair to poor condition, to be removed

·     90 metres of Poplar hedgerow/shelter belt in reasonably good condition, to be removed

5.20    The removal of healthy and structurally sound trees required in the Eastman Wetland and remaining areas of the Sutherlands Basins site includes approximately 46 trees plus 455 linear metres of hedgerows/shelter belt (some of the trees with hedgerows to be removed contain weed species and are in poor or very poor condition).  The remaining 163 healthy and structurally sound trees and hedgerows on the site are to be retained.  Full details and tree locations are provided in Attachment B.

5.21    The Council’s Botanist has recommended that weed species including Hawthorn and Elderberry are removed during the works.  Although the Hawthorn hedgerows provide amenity, screening, shelter and wildlife habitat/food source, Hawthorn is becoming a pest around the Port Hills and Banks Peninsula.  Due to the close proximity of the site to the Port Hills and being within the existing bird migration routes, it is recommended that those species are removed from the site.

6.   Option 1 - Approve the tree removals (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option allows for tree removals to take place to facilitate the water quality treatment and flood protection provided by the works.

6.2       This option will result in the removal of:

·     Approximately 46 healthy and structurally sound trees plus 455 metres of hedgerows within the Eastman Wetland and remaining areas of the Sutherlands Basins site.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to seek approval from the Community Board for the tree removals.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.6       The tree removals facilitate stormwater quality improvement works that will improve water quality in downstream rivers and the estuary however, and this is known to be an issue of concern to mana whenua.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The South West Area Plan was approved in 2009 and the proposed stormwater basins are consistent with this plan.

6.8       At community meetings held in October 2017, the views expressed were that flood mitigation works are required and that the current level of flood risk is unacceptable.  Residents have reported high levels of anxiety in anticipation of further flooding.

6.9       Water quality improvement is a significant issue for the community and the improvements provided by the wetland and basins will contribute to achieving healthy waterways.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - The cost of the removal of the trees is included within the construction of these projects and there is no additional cost above that already approved.

6.12    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - The removal of the trees has no ongoing maintenance cost implications.

6.13    Funding source – Sutherlands/Hoon Hay Basin is funded from CPMS ID 32443 and Eastman Wetland is funded from CPMS ID 46474.

Legal Implications

6.14    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

6.16    The legal consideration is that the facilities are required to meet the South West Christchurch stormwater discharge permit CRC120223 requirements.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a risk that tree removals are not approved.  This may result in additional costs and time delays arising from redesign.

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

6.17.2    The current treatment is to seek approval from the Community Board and provide sufficient information for them to make an informed decision.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies – Implementation is dependent on approval from the Community Board.

6.19    Implementation timeframe – If approval is obtained then the works will begin in the second half of 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·     Water quality enhancement provided through the creation of treatment basins and wetlands

·     Enables flood protection works to proceed without delay

·     Maximises the flood storage area on the land

·     Indigenous forest and wetland habitat will be established

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of approximately 46 structurally sound and healthy trees and 455 metres of hedgerows

·     Immediate loss of tree cover where this occurs

7.   Option 2 - Decline the removal of the trees

Option Description

7.1       This option involves declining the removal of the trees.

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 likely to require consultation to gather further information about the views and preferences of the community.

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       Declining the removal of the trees impacts the delivery of the facilities and results in delays to the flood mitigation and water quality benefits of the works. This is not consistent with the feedback received to date on community views and preferences.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1      Inconsistency - Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding would not be fully implemented.

7.6.2      Reason for inconsistency - the Upper Heathcote storage scheme cannot be fully implemented.

7.6.3      Amendment necessary - the design would require revision and further options would need to be investigated.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – the cost of re-design has not been quantified but could be significant.

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – no change from the current situation.

7.9       Funding source – Sutherlands/Hoon Hay Basins are funded from CPMS ID 32443 and Eastman Wetland is funded from CPMS ID 46474.

Legal Implications

7.10    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

7.12    The legal consideration is that the facilities are required to meet the South West Christchurch stormwater discharge permit CRC120223 requirements.  If Sutherlands Basins are not constructed then action may be taken against the Council for non-compliance with consent conditions.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    There is a risk that if the Sutherlands Basins works are delayed, then action may be taken against the Council due to non-compliance with consent conditions.

7.13.1    Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be Low.

7.13.2    Planned treatment(s) include alerting Environment Canterbury to the delay and the reasons for it.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board decision

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Redesign may take a period of several months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     No reduction in existing tree cover.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Risk of action being taken due to delays in complying with CRC120223 consent conditions.

·     Delays to the flood mitigation delivery.

·     Potentially significant costs of redesign.

·     Reduction in treatment and flood storage capacity of the wetlands and basins due to reducing the area available for use by retaining areas with trees.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Eastman Wetland and Sutherlands Basins - Landscape Concept Plan

25

b

Eastman Wetlands and Sutherlands Basins - Tree Report

26

 

 

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

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

9.        Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Level Crossing Approaches – Road Markings

Reference:

18/483028

Presenter:

Peter Rodgers, Graduate Transport Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve road markings on the approaches to level crossings in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards, in accordance with Attachments A to F.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 assessing the impact of the project against the criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the installation of ‘no overtaking’ road markings in accordance with the agenda Attachments B to F on the road approaches to railway level crossings in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards, at the following roads:

·    Annex Road (Attachment B)

·    McAlpine Street (Attachments C and D)

·    Parker Street (Attachment E)

·    Kirk Road (Attachment F)

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve road markings (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 supplementary advanced warning on level crossing approaches.

·     Ensures that level crossings meet the minimum requirements for level crossing approaches required by the Traffic Control Devices Manual (Part 9: Level Crossings)

·     Clarifies to road users that it is inappropriate and unsafe to overtake just before a level crossing

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Cost to implement (although this is required by law)

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Traffic Control Devices Rule) covers requirements for the design, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of traffic control devices, and functions and responsibilities of road controlling authorities. The Traffic Control Devices Manual (TCD Manual) is incorporated in the Rule as a reference and provides guidance on best practice and practices that are mandated by law in relation to the use of Traffic Control Devices. Part 9 of this manual relates to railway level crossings.

5.2       Following an audit of level crossings in Christchurch, staff identified a number of level crossings which did not have the full extent of road markings which are required by legislation.

5.3       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell–Hornby–Riccarton Community Board to approve the road markings required by legislation at the approaches to level crossings in the Halswell, Hornby and Riccarton Wards.

5.4       In all cases, the road markings required are ‘no overtaking’ or ‘no passing’ lines, which are designated by a solid yellow line to the left of the white centreline and indicate that motorists should not overtake at these locations.

Legal Requirements

5.5       The Road User Rules state that a driver must not pass or attempt to pass another vehicle moving in the same direction at or within 60 metres of a level crossing. The TCD Manual requires ‘no overtaking’ lines for a minimum distance of 65 metres. Therefore, to comply with the TCD Manual requirement, road markings need to be a minimum distance of 65 metres from the level crossing limit line.

5.6       Permanent warning signs must be placed at the start of the ‘no overtaking’ lines, which then extend up to the limit line at the level crossing. These signs must be placed where they are visible to approaching traffic and provide a safe stopping distance.

5.7       The proposed changes show a driver that they are not permitted to overtake in these areas.

5.8       A number of other minor changes to the level crossings are also being implemented, including the installation and relocation of existing permanent warning signs to ensure the level crossing approaches are compliant.

5.9       There are no changes required to the Kilmarnock Street, Whiteleigh Avenue, Wrights Road, Riccarton Road, Halswell Junction Road, Amyes Road, Carmen Road, Main South Road level crossing approaches as they are compliant. The level crossings on Carmen Road/Main South Road and the southern level crossing on Halswell Junction Road are on state highways and are the responsibility of the New Zealand Transport Agency.

5.10    The northernmost level crossing on Halswell Junction Road, near its intersection with Waterloo Road, will be permanently closed later this year when Halswell Junction Road is realigned.

5.11    The following level crossing approaches (shown in Attachment A) all require minor changes. This will ensure that the level crossings meet the requirements of the Traffic Control Devices Rule.

Annex Road

5.11.1    A scheme design for changes to Annex Road was approved by the joint Spreydon/Heathcote and Riccarton/Wigram Community Boards on 11 March 2015. However, this project is not currently budgeted for implementation until 2022. It is proposed to implement the markings in Attachment B to ensure the existing level crossing approaches meet the requirements of the Traffic Control Devices Rule

5.11.2    There are no existing ‘no overtaking’ lines on the southeast approach to the Annex Road level crossing.

5.11.3    The north western approach is compliant and requires no changes.

5.11.4    The new ‘no overtaking’ lines are proposed to be extended from the limit line of Annex Road at the Lunns Road intersection, 41 metres to the southeast in accordance with Attachment B.

McAlpine Street

5.11.5    There are existing ‘no overtaking’ lines on both approaches to the McAlpine Street level crossing, however, they are of insufficient length.

5.11.6    The existing ‘no overtaking’ lines are proposed to be extended by 20 metres on the western approach, up to a total of 70 metres from the level crossing in accordance with Attachment C.

5.11.7    The existing ‘no overtaking’ lines are proposed to be extended by 34 metres on the eastern approach, up to a total of 62 metres from the level crossing in accordance with Attachment D.

Parker Street

5.11.8    There are no existing ‘no overtaking’ lines on the southern approach to the Parker Street level crossing.

5.11.9    The northern approach is compliant and requires no changes.

5.11.10 The new ‘no overtaking’ lines are proposed to be extended from the level crossing, 70 metres to the south in accordance with Attachment E.

Kirk Road

5.11.11 There are existing ‘no overtaking’ lines on the northern approach to the Kirk Road level crossing, however, they are of insufficient length.

5.11.12 The existing ‘no overtaking’ lines are proposed to be extended by 20 metres on the northern approach, up to a total of 87 metres from the level crossing in accordance with  Attachment F.

6.   Option 1 - Approve No Overtaking Lines at level crossing approaches (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the changes to the road markings on the level crossing approaches in accordance with Attachments B to F.

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       Community views have not been sought on this proposal as these are minor safety related changes with little to no impact on the community. These proposed changes ensure that the layout of the level crossings are consistent with the legal requirements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – $2,500 for the road markings

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Maintenance of road markings is covered by the existing maintenance budget and the impact will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations budgets

Legal Implications

6.9       The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Traffic Control Devices Rule.  This options makes the level crossings compliant with the Traffic Control Devices Rule. 

6.10    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 Council’s powers under section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974.  This includes facilities for the control of traffic and traffic enforcement laws (for example regulatory road markings).

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    There are no known risks to this option.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval 

6.13    Implementation timeframe – Implementation is expected to be before the end of June 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides supplementary advanced warning on level crossing approaches.

·   Ensures that level crossings meet the minimum requirements for level crossing approaches required by the Traffic Control Devices Manual (Part 9: Level Crossings)

·   Clarifies to road users that it is inappropriate and unsafe to overtake just before a level crossing

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Cost to implement (although this is required by law)

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not make changes to the level crossing approaches.

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       See section 6.4 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Traffic Control Devices Rule.  Existing level crossings provisions for no overtaking lines are deficient. 

7.10    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 Council’s powers under section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974.  This includes facilities for the control of traffic and traffic enforcement laws (for example regulatory road markings).

7.11    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Traffic Control Devices Rule.

7.12    This option involves four level crossings remaining non-compliant with the Traffic Control Devices Rule.

Risks and Mitigations

7.13    Not Applicable

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to implement

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Level crossings continue to have noncompliant markings

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Level Crossings - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Overview Plan

71

b

Annex Road Level Crossing - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Plan For Board Approval

72

c

McAlpine Street Level Crossing (west approach) - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Plan For Board Approval

73

d

McAlpine Street Level Crossing (east approach) - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Plan For Board Approval

74

e

Parker Street Level Crossing - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Plan For Board Approval

75

f

Kirk Road Level Crossing - Proposed 'No Overtaking' Road Markings - Plan For Board Approval

76

 

 

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

Peter Rodgers - Graduate Transport Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

10.    Buchanans Road - Proposed Speed Limit Changes

Reference:

18/482851

Presenters:

Edwin Tiong, Traffic Engineer and Dane Moir, Engagement Delivery Assistant

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s recommendation to the Council that it approve the proposed speed limit changes on Buchanans Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a Buchanans Road subdivision road safety audit recommendation to reduce the speed limit on Buchanans Road.

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 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

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 2 and 3 and includes the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps.

2.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Buchanans Road commencing at a point measured 900 metres south east of Pound Road and extending in a south easterly direction to a point measured 200 metres north west of Gilberthorpes Road. 

3.         Approve that the speed limit on Buchanans Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point measured 900 metres south east of Pound Road and extending in an south easterly direction to a point measured 200 metres north west of Gilberthorpes Road.   

4.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 2 and 3 come into force once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following Council approval.

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 – Set Speed Limits in accordance with the Road Safety Audit and consultant recommendation (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Speed limits are set at a level that are appropriate for the nature of the road use

·     Reduced potential for crashes with high severity injuries

·     Proposed speed limits supported by community

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Longer travel times

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Buchanans Road through the existing Delamain subdivision and the new subdivision south of Buchanans Road, is classified as a minor arterial road in the Christchurch City Council road network hierarchy. It has a carriageway width between seven to nine metres, with the northern and southern shoulders having a width of 1.5 metres and two metres respectively. Buchanans Road has a posted speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour that reduces to 70 kilometres per hour in this short section of Buchanans Road between Delamain Drive and Little Oaks Drive.

5.2       Within the Delamain subdivision, Jarnac Boulevard is classified as a collector road, with a carriageway width of 14 metres including cycle lanes that will connect to the future Yaldhurst Village subdivision. The remaining roads within the Delamain subdivision are classified as local roads and are typically formed with a seven to nine metres wide carriageway inclusive of parking. The subdivision accommodates a preschool, a swim school, a number of playground, parks and reserve areas. The posted speed limit throughout the subdivision is currently 50 kilometres per hour.

5.3       The new subdivision on the south of Buchanans Road will be carried out in a number of stages. The initial stage will see a new access (with priority control) to Buchanans Road opposite Jarnac Boulevard. Additional accesses will become available through Roberts Road when the subdivision is completed. Gilberthorpe School is within walking distance of the new subdivision. It is anticipated that traffic will grow on this route with the ongoing development.

5.4       The road safety audit recommended that the intersection of Buchanans Road/Jarnac Boulevard and the new access to the new subdivision be upgraded to a signalised intersection as Buchanans Road has a 70 kilometres per hour speed limit in the vicinity of Jarnac Boulevard and that any crashes would be more severe than crashes in a 50 kilometres per hour zone. However, the Council will install traffic signals at this intersection when the new subdivision is fully constructed and the traffic figures increase. To reduce the risk levels, the Council is proposing to reduce the speed limit on Buchanans Road in the interim. 

5.5       With reference to Table 2.1: Within Proposed Safe and Appropriate Speeds classification method in the New Zealand Speed Management Guide (Nov 2016), Buchanans Road adjacent to the subdivision would be best described as ‘residential adjacent land use’ for which a safe and appropriate speed of 50 kilometres per hour is indicated. With the new subdivision, a preschool, a swim school, a primary school and a number of playground park and reserve areas in the vicinity, the currently posted speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour would therefore be out of context and there would be high benefit opportunities to improve the credibility of the speed limit by implementing the proposed speed limit change to 50 kilometres per hour.

5.6       Staff initially consulted with the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), New Zealand Automobile Association (NZAA) and Police on the speed limit reductions with no objections received.

5.7       The consultation proposal reduces the speed limit on Buchanans Road from 70 kilometres per hour to 50 kilometres per hour 900 metres south east of Pound Road to 200 metres north west of Gilberthorpes Road. 

5.8       There has been one non-injury crash involving a rear end crash in the last five years.  This section of Buchanans Road is classified as Low Risk under the Council’s risk mapping system. 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Reduce Speed Limit to 50 kilometres per hour (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option involves the changing speed limit in accordance with the Buchanans Road subdivision road safety audit and consultant recommendations, as indicated in Attachment A.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance includes the consultation with the owner and occupier of any property likely to be affected by the option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Consultation was carried out from 9 April to 30 April 2018. The Council delivered 520 leaflets to properties within the affected area and 92 were posted to absentee owners. The Council received 64 submissions during this time. Of those who submitted, 60 supported the proposal and four did not support the proposal.

6.5       The following issues were raised by submitters:

Issue

Project team response

Can you add a turning arrow at the Buchanans/Carmen intersection?

This is out of the scope of this project. Carmen Road is part of the State Highway and the request for right turn arrows at the intersection of Buchanans Road/Carmen Road will be directed to NZTA.

Can a stop sign be added at all intersections that lead out of the subdivision?

Appropriate priority controls at intersections to the new subdivision and Jarnac Boulevard, will be installed. 

Can the speed limit be extended further down Pound Road?

Under the New Zealand Speed Management Guide, the remaining section of Buchanans Road up to Pound Road is still categorised as rural and the existing 80kph speed limit will be retained.

Can a school speed zone be added outside Gilberthorpe School?

This is out of the scope of this project. A survey carried out on Buchanans Road for Gilberthorpe School warrants a School Speed Zone. There is currently no funding in the draft Long Term Plan for a school speed zone at this location. Staff are awaiting the outcome of the LTP to determine how much funding can be allocated to school safety. 

Can traffic lights be added at the Jarnac/Buchanans intersection?

This is out of the scope of this project. This will occur in future when the new subdivision is fully developed and traffic figures increase.

Stop heavy trucks going down Buchanans Road

 

Buchanans Road is classified as a minor arterial road in the Christchurch City Council road network hierarchy.  Carrying heavy vehicles is an important and anticipated role of this road classification.

Can a 50 kilometres  per hour sign be painted on the road?

 

Yes

Additional traffic calming measures should be added

Gated speed threshold signs and marking will be installed on Buchanans Road as part of the traffic calming measures to slow traffic down when approaching the urban residential area.

 

6.6       NZTA has indicated its general support for the proposal.

6.7       A letter has been sent to all submitters advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Community Board meeting, and how they can request to speak to their submission if they wish. Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback received and the Community Board report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation - $3,000 for the installation of traffic controls, plus $750 for consultation and the preparation of this report

6.10    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

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

Legal Implications

6.12    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017. 

6.13    Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.14    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits to Community Boards. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    None identified

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies – Community Board recommendation to the Council for approval.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - Approximately six weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Speed limits are set at a level that are appropriate for the nature of the road use.

·   Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

·   Proposed speed limits supported by community

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Longer travel times (14 seconds)

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing speed limit.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Refer to sections 6.4 to 6.7 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is not consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $750 for consultation and the preparation of this report

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – Existing operational budgets

Legal Implications

7.9       There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Road use environment not addressed.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains existing travel times.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not have the potential to improve road safety in accordance to changes of adjacent land development.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Buchanans Road - Proposed Speed Limit Changes - Plan TG132764 - For Council Approval

84

 

 

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

Edwin Tiong - Traffic Engineer

Dane Moir - Engagement Delivery Assistant

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

11.    Proposed Greater Hornby Residents' Association - Recognition

Reference:

18/553787

Contact:

Karla Gunby

Karla.gunby@ccc.govt.nz

941 6705

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the recognition of the proposed Greater Hornby Residents’ Association.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated arising from an application received from the proposed Greater Hornby Residents’ Association.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by taking into account the localised area that the options involve.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the recognition of the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association in accordance with the Council’s Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

2.         Approve the area boundaries of the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association, as follows:

·     Corner of Pound Road/Halswell Junction Road down to Waterloo Road, back down to Halswell Junction Road, down to Springs Road.

·     Springs Road up to Main South Road, over Sockburn Overbridge to the roundabout and down Epsom Road.

·     Epsom Road up Racecourse Road turning into Buchanans Road, up to Carmen Road.

·     Cut through Masham Reserve to the right of Heidi Place and around Arcon Drive, across Broomfield Common to Gilberthorpes Road.

·     Down Gilberthorpes Road to Roberts Road up to Pound Road down Pound Road to Halswell Junction Road.

3.         Appoint a Board member(s) as liaison with the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association for the remainder of the 2016-19 term.

 

3.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Public Participation in Community and City Governance and Decision-making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.9 Percentage of residents that feel they can participate in and contribute to Council decision making

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

3.2.1     Option 1 – Approve the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association as a recognised residents’ group in accordance with the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy (preferred option).

3.2.2          Option 2 – Do not approve the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association as a recognised residents’ group under the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

3.3.3     The advantages of this option include:

·        The organisation will provide a voice for the residents of the identified area to the Council, to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and other agencies on issues of significance and interest to the community.

·        The Council and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will have an avenue in which to communicate with the residents in the identified area.

·        The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will be granted status as a recognised Residents’ Association under the Council’s Resident's Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

·        The surrounding Residents’ Associations will have a smaller area of coverage and therefore be in a better position to place their efforts in a more concentrated area.

·        The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will acknowledge the past work of the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Associations. The new Residents’ Association has said they will support the smaller local Residents’ Associations with the option of becoming  active again if a specific issue arises in that area. 

·        The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will seek to find representatives from Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association to give local feedback and representation.

3.3.4          The disadvantages of this option include:

·        The large area that this new residents' association will cover.  It includes the dissolved Hei Hei Residents’ Association, and the two residents’ groups in recess, namely the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents' Associations, as well as additional areas. 

 

4.   Context/Background

Request for recognition

4.1       A request has been received for recognition from representatives of a group seeking to form a Greater Hornby Residents’ Association.  Under the Council’s current Residents’ Association Recognition Policy 2001, groups need to seek recognition from their respective Community Board including approval for their boundaries.

Background

4.2       Greater Hornby has had a number of Residents’ Associations in the past. Hei Hei resolved to dissolve in February 2010.  The Islington Residents’ Association is currently inactive but has not officially gone into recess.  Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association went into recess in 2017. Wigram Park went into recess in 2010.    

4.3       The current residents' associations in the Greater Hornby area that are still active on varying levels are Gilberthorpes, Riccarton Park, Steadman Road and Delamain. Associations tend to become more active when a specific issue arises such as the revival of the Steadman Road Residents’ Association when the housing development started on the Riccarton Racecourse. 

4.4       The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will come up to the boundaries of the Delamain, Riccarton Park, former Wigram Park, Steadman Road and Awatea Residents' Associations. 

4.5       The group of interested residents have formally met a number of times.  Their latest meeting unanimously resolved that the existing planning group continue with working on becoming a residents’ association in the form of an incorporated society.  They are currently working on attaining incorporation status.

4.6       A number of issues and activities of interest for the future have been identified and discussed including:

·    Traffic issues around Hornby

·    Street flooding

·    Council facilities in the area

·    Maintenance of parks and roadsides

·    Deep gutters in the area

Boundary

4.7       The coverage area of the the proposed Greater Hornby Residents’ Association is:

·    Corner of Pound Road/Halswell Junction Road down to Waterloo Road, back down to Halswell Junction Road, down to Springs Road.

·    Springs Road up to Main South Road, over Sockburn Overbridge to the roundabout and down Epsom Road.

·    Epsom Road up Racecourse Road turning into Buchanans Road, up to Carmen Road.

·    Cut through Masham Reserve to the right of Heidi Place and around Arcon Drive, across Broomfield Common to Gilberthorpes Road.

·    Down Gilberthorpes Road to Roberts Road up to Pound Road down Pound Road to Halswell Junction Road.

4.8       The above area is shown in Attachment B.

4.9       Within the area is the Waterloo Business Park, the Hub Hornby, Dress Mart and the Chappie Place Business Park.  State Highway 1 runs through the area which is under the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The main parks are Denton, Kyle, Leslie, Hornby Domain, Wycola, Broomfield Common, Branston and the Springs Halswell Reserve. 

4.10    While the Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy does not specifically stipulate that any geographical area should only be recognised as being covered by one group, this has been the preferred direction in order to eliminate duplication and silos.  To avoid this, negotiation is sought between the different groups over areas of coverage when boundaries are defined.  The Policy states that "Community Boards decide boundaries for Residents' Associations taking their views into account when doing so" (refer to Attachment A).

 


 

5.   Option 1 - Approve Recognition of the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association (preferred)

Option Description

5.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board approves the recognition of  the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association under the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy and approves its boundaries as being:

·    Corner of Pound Road/Halswell Junction Road down to Waterloo Road, back down to Halswell Junction Road, down to Springs Road.

·    Springs Road up to Main South Road, over Sockburn Overbridge to the roundabout and down Epsom Road.

·    Epsom Road up Racecourse Road turning into Buchanans Road, up to Carmen Road.

·    Cut through Masham Reserve to the right of Heidi Place and around Arcon Drive, across Broomfield Common to Gilberthorpes Road.

·    Down Gilberthorpes Road to Roberts Road up to Pound Road down Pound Road to Halswell Junction Road.

Significance

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

5.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are localised engagement within the community concerned.

Impact on Mana Whenua

5.4       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

5.5       Residents living in the Greater Hornby area are specifically affected by this option.  Their views have been canvassed by the group concerned through flyers and an invitation to attend a public meeting.  The attendance figure of 60 people at the original meeting and subsequent meetings and the unanimous support of the proposal to form a residents’ group, would suggest that there is strong community support for this proposal.

5.6       The views of past members of the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association have been sought as the proposed boundaries fall into the area previously covered by these groups. They have agreed that the formation of a Greater Hornby Residents’ Association is more practical and will meet the needs of residents. 

5.7       The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will acknowledge the past work of the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Associations, and have been given the option to become active again if a specific issue arises in these areas.  The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will seek to find representatives from the areas to give feedback and representation.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

5.9       Cost of Implementation – There is no cost to the Council for the implementation of this decision.

5.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association may have costs from time to time that it may wish to apply to the Council for in the same way as other residents’ groups have done. 

5.11    Funding source – The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will be able to apply to the Council's funding schemes including the Strengthening Communities Fund and the Board's Discretionary Response Fund in the same manner as other community organisations.

Legal Implications

5.12    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

5.13    It is anticipated that there is no risk to the Council for this option.

Implementation

5.14    Implementation dependencies – Not applicable

5.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

5.16    The advantages of this option include:

·    The organisation will provide a voice for the residents of the identified area to the Council, to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and other agencies on issues of significance and interest to the community.

·    The Council and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will have an avenue in which to communicate with the residents in the identified area.

·    The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will be granted status as a recognised Residents’ Association under the Council’s Resident's Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

·    The surrounding Residents’ Associations will have a smaller area of coverage and therefore be in a better position to place their efforts in a more concentrated area.

·    The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will acknowledge the past work of the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Associations. The new residents’ association has said they will support the smaller local residents’ associations with the option of becoming  active again if a specific issue arises in those areas. 

·    The Greater Hornby Residents’ Association will seek to find representatives from the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association to give local feedback and representation.

3.3.5          The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The large area that this new residents' association will cover.  It includes the former Hei Hei Residents’ Association, and the two residents’ associations in recess, namely the Islington and Hornby East Triangle Residents', as well as additional areas.  

6.   Option 2 – Do Not Approve Recognition of the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association

Option Description

6.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board do not recognise the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low.

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are localised engagement within the community concerned.

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       Residents living in the Greater Hornby area are specifically affected by this option.  Their views have been canvassed by the group concerned through flyers and an invitation to attend a public meeting.  The attendance figure of 60 people at the original meeting and subsequent meetings and the unanimous support of the proposal to form a residents’ group, would suggest that there is strong community support for this.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies:

3.3.6          Inconsistency – the Council Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy supports the formation of residents’ groups.

3.3.7          Reason for inconsistency – residents in this area have expressed to have a residents’ group that specifically covers their area.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

6.9       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    Nil

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·    The current boundaries of the affected Residents’ Associations are maintained. 

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    A group of people who wish to represent the area they live in as a residents’ group will not be able to formally have their group recognised by the Council.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Council Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy 2001

92

b

Proposed Greater Hornby Residents' Association - Submission

93

c

Proposed Greater Hornby Residents' Association - Boundaries

105

 

 

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

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 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


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

12.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund and Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Off the Ground Fund - Establishment

Reference:

18/561544

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to formalise the establishment of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Off the Ground Fund in the 2018-19 financial year.

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 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

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the establishment of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund and associated criteria, and to allocate $17,000 from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund.

2.         Approve the establishment of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Off the Ground Fund and associated criteria, and to allocate $1,200 from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-9 Discretionary Response Fund to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-9 Off the Ground Fund.

3.         Delegate authority to a minimum of four (4) Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members to consider and make decisions (via email) on applications received for the Off the Ground Fund according to the fund criteria, and approve grants up to a maximum of $400 per application. (The majority vote of members replying (by email) within two (2) working days shall form the basis of the decision).

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Community Boards have the delegated authority to distribute a funding envelope under the Community Grants Funding Priorities and Outcomes.  These priorities were developed from the key challenges to Building Strong Communities identified in the 2009-19 Long Term Plan (refer Attachment A).

4.2       The Community Boards will have the ability to allocate funds under a Strengthening Communities Fund and a Discretionary Response Fund.  Boards may also establish other funds targeted at specific community needs.  In 2017-18, the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board also had a Youth Development Fund and an Off the Ground Fund. The amounts allocated to these Funds are decided on by the Board.  The Community Boards will also be able to decide on how much is placed into both the Strengthening Communities Fund and the Discretionary Response Fund.

4.3       In 2017-18, the funding available for allocation by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board was $568,500.  The Board allocated $432,015 to projects through the Strengthening Communities Fund with the remaining amount being available to the Board for allocation through its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund.

4.4       The sum that the Community Board will have to allocate in the 2018-19 financial year will be determined by the Council in August 2018 following adoption of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.  The funding is expected to be no less than the Community Board had available to allocate in 2017-18.

4.5       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2017-18 Youth Development and Off the Ground Funds were established from the 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund with the following allocations:

2017-18 Youth Development Fund (initial set up)                                                                  $3,000

2017-18 Youth Development Fund (residual allocation)                                                   $15,000

2017-18 Off the Ground Fund – carry over of 2016-17 funds                                            $1,600

2017-18 Off the Ground Fund – additional funds                                                                   $1,200

4.6       In the 2017-18 financial year, the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board has allocated $16,800 to Youth Development Fund recipients and $1,935 for Off the Ground Fund projects.

4.7       It is expected that the $1,200 remaining in the 2017-18 Youth Development Fund and $865 in the Off the Ground Fund will be able to be carried over. 

4.8       Staff are recommending that the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2018-19 Youth Development Fund and the Off the Ground Fund be again established.  Given the carry over amounts, $17,000 is sought for the Youth Development Fund and $1,200 for the Off the Ground Fund.

4.9       The Community Board will be asked to decide on the splits between the 2018-19 Strengthening Communities Fund and the 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund in the report where the 2018-19 Strengthening Communities Fund applications are considered on 28 August 2018.

5.   Discretionary Response Fund

5.1       The Discretionary Response Fund is to assist community groups where the project and funding request falls outside other Council funding criteria and/or closing dates.  It is also for emergency funding for unforeseen situations. 

5.2       The Discretionary Response Fund can also be used to fund Board-initiated, Council staff delivered projects such as (but not limited to) Community Service and Garden Pride Awards and Culture Galore.  The Community Board is also able to utilise this fund to set up other funds such as the Youth Development Fund and the Off the Ground Fund.  The Discretionary Response Fund operates differently at a metropolitan and local level.

5.3       In 2016, the Council set exclusions that Local (Community Board) Discretionary Response Funds will not cover, namely:

5.3.1   Activities or initiatives where the primary purpose is to promote religious ministry, political objectives or commercial profit orientated interests

5.3.2   Projects or initiatives that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Christchurch City Council

5.3.3   Debt servicing or re-financing costs

5.3.4   Stock or capital market investment

5.3.5   Gambling or prize money

5.3.6   Payment of fines or court costs

5.3.7   Payment for Inland Revenue Department penalties or retrospective tax payments 

6.   Youth Development Fund

6.1       The purpose of the Youth Development Fund is to celebrate and support young people living in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards by providing financial assistance for their development. The Board also seeks to acknowledge young peoples’ efforts, achievements and potential excellence in the community. The Community Board reviewed the Fund criteria in February 2017 and as such, this is reflected in 6.2 to 6.4 below.

6.2       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund will enable the Board to consider applications for the following activities:

6.2.1   Personal Development and Growth - for example, leadership training, career development, Outward Bound, Spirit of Adventure, extra-curricular educational opportunities, social enterprise activities and projects both local and national initiatives.

6.2.2   Representation at Events - applicants can apply for assistance if they have been selected to represent their school, team or community at a local, national or international event or competition.  This includes sporting, cultural and community events.  

6.3       The following eligibility criteria must be met:

6.3.1   Age groups 10 to 25 years

6.3.2   Projects must have obvious benefits for the young person, and if possible the wider community.

6.3.3   Only one application per person permitted per year.

6.3.4   Applicants should be undertaking other fundraising activities and not relying solely on Community Board support.

6.4       Successful applicants will be required to report back to the Community Board on their experiences.

6.5       Each application will be assessed by the appropriate staff and presented to the Board in a report for its consideration.  The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund Application Form is included in Attachment B.

7.   Off the Ground Fund

7.1       The Off the Ground Fund acts as a quick response fund in allocating grants for small community projects.  The grant purpose is to benefit people living in the Board’s three wards and may include such things as planting vacant land, tidying up vacant areas, constructing small local commemorations, community building events, skip days, displays and activities which aim to bring communities together, inform communities and strengthen communities.

7.2       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board is therefore being invited to re-establish a 2018-19 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund.

The proposed fund criteria and the decision making process is as follows:

7.2.1   The Board intends to establish the 2018-19 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund.

7.2.2   The purpose of the Off The Ground Fund is to provide the community with access to grants for small community projects.

7.2.3   The project must benefit people living in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards.

7.2.4   Applications are to be made on a Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Off The Ground Fund Application Form.  An information sheet will be designed to publicise the Fund.

7.2.5   Applications must be applied for by one resident, group or organisation, providing contact details, location of the project and a short description of what the project will involve.  Funding will not be considered for projects already undertaken.

7.2.6   Funding may be granted for each application up to a maximum of $400.

7.2.7   Grant requests will be administered through the Council’s Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Governance Team.  Staff recommendations and a copy of the application will be circulated (by email) to Board members for consideration and decision making.

7.2.8   The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will delegate authority for the making of a decision on the allocation of the grants to at least four (4) Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members by way of email responses with the majority view being actioned from Board members responding within two working days.

7.2.9   Successful projects will be funded after receipts of expenditure have been submitted.  Expenditure must be made after the application for funding is made.  However, if an applicant wishes to have the granted amount made available, after the decision, but prior to expenditure, this request should be made at the time of application.

7.2.10 All applications will still have to meet the criteria requirements of the Discretionary   Response Fund.

7.3       Details of Off The Ground Fund grant allocations made will be provided to the Board for information and record purposes through the monthly Area Report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch City Council - Funding Outcomes and Priorities

111

b

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund - Application Form

113

 

 

Signatories

Author

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

13.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - June 2018

Reference:

18/512012

Presenter:

Gary Watson, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report for June 2018.

2.         Hold an Extraordinary Meeting of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on Friday 6 July 2018 commencing at 4pm at Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre for the purpose of considering the Council Hearing Panel recommendation on the proposed Denton Park Part Reserve Classification and Management Plan Changes. 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Denton Park – Hearing Panel Recommendation

An Extraordinary Board meeting is proposed for 4pm on Friday 6 July 2018 at Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre to consider the Hearing Panel’s recommendation on the proposed Denton Park Proposed Management Plan and Part Reserve Classification Changes.

The change in venue acknowledges the community interest in this matter and the anticipated attendance by the public. 

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

3.2.1   The Council is currently seeking community feedback on the following local projects:

·     Proposed Templeton Area Speed Limit Changes – open until 6 July 2018

·     Proposed Main South Road, No Right Turn and No U-Turn Restrictions - open until 6 July 2018

·     Proposed Springs Road/Garvins Road No Right Turn Restriction - open until 6 July 2018

·     Proposed Blenheim Road/Annex Road No U-Turn Restriction - open until 6 July 2018

3.3       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan

3.3.1   The Council is to meet on 22 June, and 26 June 2018 (if required) to consider the adoption of its Long Term Plan 2018-28.

 

 

 

 

 

3.4       Board Reporting

3.4.1   Board members are invited through the issued weekly meetings schedule, to forward any items they would like highlighted for inclusion in the Board’s monthly Newsletter, Newsline releases and the monthly report to the Council.

4.   Community Board Plan – Update against Outcomes

4.1       A summary is provided of the measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the Community Board Plan 2017-19, as at June 2018 (refer Attachment A).

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1   Applications made to the 2018-19 Strengthening Communities Fund will be considered and decided on by the Board at its meeting on 28 August 2018. 

5.1.2   The actual amount the Board will have available to allocate will be decided on by the Council by August 2018. It is envisaged that the figure will be no less than the Board had available to allocate in 2017-18. 

5.1.3   Any Strengthening Communities funding not allocated by the Board on 28 August 2018 will be available for Board allocation as part of its 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund.

5.2       Infrastructure projects underway

5.2.1   Harrington Park – Public Toilet

A start on the construction of the Harrington Park toilet is scheduled for mid-June, subject to favourable weather conditions.

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

6.1       Greater Hornby Residents’ Association

A separate report on this topic is contained within the meeting agenda.

6.2       Young Ones and Shuffle Bumz

The Young Ones and Shuffle Bumz programme held an Open Day on Wednesday 6 June 2018.  This is a Music to Movement programme targeted at young mothers (under the age of 25) and their pre-school aged children.

 


 


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

7.1       Team Leader

The Community Parks South Team welcomes Grant Bunting as Team Leader. Grant is a highly regarded sports turf professional who spent 17 years managing the Wanaka Golf Course and also six years with PGG Wrightson in technical sales having contributed to the delivery of international grade sports turf across Canterbury and Otago. Grant is managing sports fields across the city and Banks Peninsula. He will be introduced to the Board in the coming weeks.

7.2       Maintenance Programme

Scheduled Parks Maintenance Programme for June 2018:

Activity

Frequency per month

 

Ornamental mowing

1

 

Amenity mowing

1

 

Ornamental garden maintenance

2

 

Winter sport field mowing

2

 

Winter sport cricket block maintenance

2

 

Winter sport line marking

2

 

Chemical weed control

1

 

Bin Emptying

5

 

Play and Fitness Equipment Check

1

Drinking Fountain Clean

5

Scheduled Parks Maintenance Programme for July 2018:

Activity

Frequency per month

Ornamental mowing

2

Amenity mowing

1

Ornamental garden maintenance

2

Winter sport field mowing

4

Winter sport cricket block maintenance

2

Winter sport line marking

3

Chemical weed control

1

Bin Emptying

4

Play and Fitness Equipment Check

1

Drinking Fountain Clean

4

 


 

7.3       Performance

Delta’s audited quality performance for April 2018 was 91 per cent with a breakdown below:

 

 

 

 


 

Delta’s audited quality performance for May 2018 was 89 per cent with a breakdown below:

 

 

7.4       Volunteer Activities with Urban Ranger

Urban Ranger, Mandy Black, facilitated a community planting day at Kahurangi Drainage Reserve in May 2018 with ten volunteers. 200 plants were planted with more plantings to occur over the remainder of the season.

 

 

8.   Community Board Funding Update – June 2018

8.1       For information, a status summary is provided of the Board’s 2017-18 funding (refer to Attachment B)

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Plan 2017-19 - Progress Update - June 2018

123

b

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Funding 2017-18 - Update - June 2018

128

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Noela Letufuga - Community Support Officer

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 


PDF Creator


 


 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

19 June 2018

 

 

14.  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.