Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 20 June 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

15 June 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 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.......................................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

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

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

C       7.       Briefings.......................................................................................................................... 15

Staff Reports

C       8.       Ferrymead Park Drive - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions..................................... 17

C       9.       Lismore Street, Waltham - Proposed P120 Restrictions............................................ 25

C       10.     Disraeli and Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P60 Restrictions.......................... 33

C       11.     Moore Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions............................... 41

C       12.     Geraldine Street/Gresford Street, Edgeware - Proposed Formalising of Give Way Control and No Stopping Restrictions......................................................................... 49

C       13.     Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Various Intersections Selwyn Street............. 57

C       14.     Road Stopping Application - Jubilee Street................................................................ 67

C       15.     Property Review Process.............................................................................................. 87

C       16.     Applications to 2017/18 Youth Development Fund - Annamarie Lipp and Mikayla Frances May Werahiko................................................................................................ 129

C       17.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund - Various Organisations................................................................................................. 133

C       18.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Cashmere Technical Football Incorporated.............................................................. 139

C       19.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - June 2018 143

 

B       20.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 205 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 28 May 2018  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.1

Road Stopping Application – Jubilee Street (Agenda Item 14 refers)

Mr Lloyd Reid, resident of Jubilee Street, will address the Board on the Road Stopping Application – Jubilee Street. 

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 28 May 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Tim Lindley

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

28 May 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

1     Apologies

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00079

That apologies received for absence from Darrell Latham and Tim Lindley and an apology for lateness from Sara Templeton be accepted.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                          Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00080

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 16 May 2018 be confirmed.

Yani Johanson/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                 Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

4.1       Breastscreen Canterbury - Mobile Unit

Part B

Ms Rosemary Hall and Ms Deborah Talaga of Breastscreen Canterbury addressed the Board regarding seeking a suitable site in east Christchurch for the Breastscreen Mobile Unit.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Hall and Ms Talaga for their presentation.

The Board requested staff advice on an interim site for the mobile unit and asked that a range of appropriate locations with ease of access within the Board area be considered.

Sara Templeton arrived at the meeting at 3.25pm.

 

4.2       Cumnor Terrace Proposed Cycling/Walking Track

Part B

Mr Bruce Stanton, local resident, addressed the Board regarding a proposal to enhance accessibility and safe use of a proposed walking and cycling track around the Woolston Cut on the true right bank of the Heathcote River to Cumnor Terrace.

 

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

 

The Board requested staff advice how staff will work with Mr Stanton and the community to develop an informal track on the right side of the Heathcote River from the Woolston Cut to Cumnor Terrace.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1     Road Stopping Application – Jubilee Street

Mr Lloyd Reid, resident of Jubilee Street, addressed the Board on the Road Stopping Application – Jubilee Street and his concerns about accessibility to 85 and 87 Rutherford Street.   Mr Reid referred the Board to a newspaper article dated 11 April 2003 and a letter he had recently sent to Council staff.  (Clause 14 of these minutes refers to the Board’s decision on this matter).

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

 

14. Road Stopping Application - Jubilee Street

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board supports the retention of the link strip and landscape area for the technical reasons set out by the Transport Unit, and recommends that Council:

Substantive Issue

1.         Supports the retention of the link strip and landscape area (noting that as a consequence this does not provide the opportunity for future disposal);

Historic Issue

2.         Noting that permission for access had been given as an exception to deal with extenuating transport safety, delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the task of giving formal effect to the formed access-way from 85 and 87 Rutherford St over the link strip through an appropriate mechanism.

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and answered questions from members.

 

In its deliberations, the Board also took account of the deputation from Mr Reid (Items 5.1 these minutes refer).

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00081

Part B

1.         That the report lay on the table pending staff advice on:

a.      The response to Mr Reid’s letter of 16 May 2018 to Council staff regarding the access requested and

b.     The options for formalising the historical access and the proposed access to 84B Bamford Street.

Yani Johanson/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

6.      Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.   

 

7.   Briefings

 

Rose Chapel and Nurses Chapel Update.

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information given during the briefing on the Rose Chapel and Nurses Chapel repairs and proposed openings.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked the presenters for their Briefing.

 

8.   Richmond Hill, Sumner - Proposed 40km/h Speed Zone

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2018/00082 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend that 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 1.a to 1.b and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 50 kilometres per hour speed limit of Richmond Hill Road, Sanscrit Place, Teviotdale Way, Sowerby Place, Ridgeway Place and Oxenhope Road.

b.         Approve that the speed limit of: Richmond Hill Road, Sanscrit Place, Teviotdale Way, Sowerby Place, Ridgeway Place and Oxenhope Road be set to 40 kilometres per hour.

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1a and 1b come into force following date of council approval and installation of the revised speed limit signs. (approximately June 2018).

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

9.   Madras Street North of Bealey Ave - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00083 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Madras Street shown with broken yellow lines on drawing TG132740 Issue 1 dated 23/1/2018 attached to the meeting agenda is prohibited.

2.         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 1. are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control measures that evidence the restrictions described in 1.in place.

Sara Templeton/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                Carried

 

10. 70 Rudds Road, Linwood - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Rudds Road and Kearneys Road as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawings TG133009 issue 1 dated 23/4/2018, attached to the meeting agenda is prohibited.

2.         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 this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00084

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Rudds Road and Kearneys Road as shown with broken yellow lines on drawing TG133009 issue 1 dated 23/4/2018, attached to the meeting agenda is prohibited.

2.         Approve 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 1.are revoked.

3.         Approve that these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1. are in place.

4.       Request staff to report back in nine months on the effectiveness of the above measures.

5.         Note the community concerns expressed regarding parking, safety, and traffic issues at the Kearneys Road and Rudds Road corner.

6.         Request staff advice on:

a.         Canterbury Indoor Bowls car parking being open for overflow car parking.

b.         Formalising some parking on the berm nearest to park.

c.         Any potential for overflow car parking in Council's vacant section.

d.         Basic maintenance of Council's vacant section being undertaken so it doesn’t look so neglected.

e.         Any Resource Consent for Celebration Church sports development or Council’s planned sports development.

f.          Potential for more berm planting to deter parking on berms.

Yani Johanson/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

11. Chelsea Street/Russell Street, Linwood - Proposed Formalising of Give Way Control

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00085 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         That pursuant to section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 and clauses 2.1 and 10.1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 Give-Way control is imposed at all times and road markings and signs erected on Russell Street, at its intersection with Chelsea Street, as indicated in drawing TG132731 issue 1 dated 11/4/2018 attached to the meeting agenda.

2.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Russell Street and Chelsea Street as shown with broken yellow lines on drawing TG132731 issue 1 dated 11/4/2018 attached to the meeting agenda is prohibited.

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 1.are revoked.

4.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control measures that evidence the restrictions described in the 1. and 2. are in place.

Alexandra Davids/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

12. Major Hornbrook Road at Muritai Terrace, Mount Pleasant - Proposed No Stopping and P5 Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00086 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Major Hornbrook Road and Muritai Terrace shown with broken yellow lines on drawing TG133008 Issue 1 dated 23/4/2018 attached to the meeting agenda is prohibited.

2.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that marked bus stops, for the purposes of picking up and dropping off passengers only, be installed on the parts of Major Hornbrook Road shown on drawing TG133008 Issue 1 23/4/2018 attached to the meeting agenda dated.

3.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Major Hornbrook Road as indicated in drawing TG133008 Issue 1 dated 23/4/2018 attached to the meeting agenda, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 5 minutes.

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 1.,2. or 3.are revoked.

5.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control measures that evidence the restrictions described in 1.,2. or 3 are in place.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

13. Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restriction

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Rescind the Board decision made on 14 March 2018 regarding the Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station Restrictions.

2.         Approve that the existing parking of vehicles within the two parking spaces identified in attachment ‘A’ located within the Hagley Park Car Park at the western end of Armagh Street and currently restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes be revoked.

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00087

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Request staff to monitor for 12 months, review and report back to the Board on the usage of the Hagley Park Electric Vehicle Charging Station within the two parking spaces located within the Hagley Park Car Park at the western end of Armagh Street identified in attachment A attached to the meeting agenda .

Deon Swiggs/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                                Carried

Sally Buck requested that her vote against the motion be recorded.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4.50pm and reconvened at 5.05pm

 

15. Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Various Organisations

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Declines making a grant of $43,087 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Cashmere Technical Football Club Incorporated towards the costs of maintaining Whittington and Garrick park playing fields.

2.         Declines making a grant of $18,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated towards a balustrade for a deck.

3.         Approves making a grant of $10,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Sumner Community Centre Incorporated towards the Theatre Fit Out in New Sumner Centre.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00088

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Lays on the table to be considered at the Board’s 20 June 2018 meeting the report on an application for a grant of $43,087 from Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Cashmere Technical Football Club Incorporated towards the costs of maintaining Whittington and Garrick park playing fields.

2.         Declines to make a grant of $18,000 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18  Discretionary Response Fund to Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated towards a balustrade for a deck.

3.         Approves a grant of $10,000 from Linwood-Central-Heathcote  2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Sumner Community Centre Incorporated towards the Theatre Fit Out in the New Sumner Centre.  

Deon Swiggs/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

16. Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - May 2018

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for May 2018.

2.         Consider whether it would like to provide funding of $3,000 from its Discretionary Response Fund towards a CPTED report for Waltham Park.

3.         Consider whether it would like to provide funding of $37,700 towards shade options for Scarborough Playground.

4.         Consider whether it would like to provide funding of $23,477.25 towards supply and installation of a CCTV camera on the corner of Aberdeen and Manchester streets.

5.         Consider whether it would like to request the Police to do a formal assessment of installing security/anti-crime cameras in Linwood Village.

6.         Provide staff with direction pertaining to water fountains in the community board area.

7.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline, Board Newsletter and the Board Report to the Council’s 7 June 2018 meeting.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00089

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for May 2018.

2.         Approves funding of $3,000 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund towards a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) report for Waltham Park.

3.         Approves funding of up to $37,700 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund towards shade options for Scarborough Playground, noting that the Board request the Scarborough Park Upgrade contingency project funding is to be spent first.

4.         Approves funding of $23,477.25 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the supply and installation of a Close Circuit TV (CCTV) camera on the corner of Aberdeen and Manchester streets.

Part B

5.         Supports the installation of two security/anti-crime cameras in Linwood Village and requests New Zealand Police to submit a formal quote for funding.

6.         Requests staff to provide quotes for water fountains in Bromley Park, Cuthberts Green, Waltham Park, Christchurch Coast Pathway (in the vicinity of Beachville Road, Redcliffs), and the summit of the Bridle Path.

7.         Requests an article in Newsline and the Board Newsletter on the celebration of community activities within the new rebuilt and repaired Council Community Centres in the community board area.

8.       Requests staff work with the Sumner RSA with regards to installation of flagpole(s) at Matuku Takotako, Sumner Centre.  Noting that the facility rebuild came in under budget and the Sumner RSA have some funding available.

9.       Requests staff to investigate widening the footpath alongside the Woolston Cut, in line with the Major cycle route.

10.       Requests staff to report back to the Board on Bromley Air Quality Monitoring Programme.

Sara Templeton/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 5.55pm

17. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

The following matters were discussed:

 

17.1    Footpaths

Part B

It was noted that footpath resealing along Major Hornbrook Road and Linwood Park were in a damaged condition.

The Board requested information on current Major Hornbook footpath renewal and why the renewal is being done prior to other footpaths in the area that appear to be in a worse condition.

 

 

18  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00090

Part C

That at 6.18pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 109 of the agenda be adopted.

Yani Johanson/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 6.20pm.

Meeting concluded at 6.22pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 20th DAY OF JUNE 2018.

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 

 

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

7.        Briefings

Reference:

18/571997

Presenter(s):

Liz Beaven, Community Board Adviser

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Redcliffs School Transport Project

Mark Gregory

Transport Network Planner, Asset Planning

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Briefings.

a.         That the Minister of Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery (Dr Megan Woods MP) has decided to proceed with the Redcliffs School project, through s71 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act

b.         That the Ministry of Education have agreed to fund safety related improvements, to be included in the terms of the sale of Redcliffs Park

c.         That the Community Board will be requested to approve safety related schemes under Part C matters of delegation, and that a report will be presented to the Board in late 2018.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

8.        Ferrymead Park Drive - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/288333

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the provision of no stopping restrictions on both sides of part of Ferrymead Park Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from the operator at Ferrymead Heritage Park, who expressed safety concerns.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve the forward sight lines of drivers using Ferrymead Park Drive in both directions, as well as the sight lines from the car park accesses.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping, standing or parking of any vehicle is prohibited at all times in the parts of road on Ferrymead Park Drive indicated in the attached drawing TG132782 issue 1 dated 21/3/2018.

2.         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 this report are revoked.

3.         That this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the forward sight lines for drivers using Ferrymead Park Drive

·     Reduces the likelihood of a head-on collision as drivers are not required to overtake parked vehicles

·     Improves the sight lines for visitors and staff leaving the car parks

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

·     Deters buses and other vehicles dropping off or picking up passengers at unsafe locations

·     Assists visitors crossing the road to and from the entrance to see oncoming traffic more clearly

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in some displacement of on-street parking

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The operators at Ferrymead Heritage Park expressed concerns about visitors parking at busy times, at inappropriate locations on street, which were generating risks to road safety.

5.2       Staff have met the management staff at the Heritage Park to discuss the problems. The highest visitor demands and generally during the summer weekends and during specific railway heritage events that generate enthusiasts from across the region

5.3       The site includes a three arm intersection, which connect with the Golf Club and the Railway Heritage element of Ferrymead Park. Within 100m of the intersection, there are three car park accesses and locations were visitors cross between a car park and the Heritage Park entrance.

5.4       Some no stopping restrictions are already in place on the north side of Ferrymead Park Road, on the same side as the entrance to the park.  Consequently, at busy times, the area generates turning traffic, buses dropping off and picking up tourist groups and visitors crossing the road. Park staff have advised that some vehicles, including buses, choose to park on the road for the convenience of dropping off or simply reducing the walking distance to the main entrance.

5.5       Staff also checked the crash history of this area. Two crashes have occurred in recent years, one injury and the other non-injury, involving cars losing control at or near the main intersection. One crash was evidently due to another vehicle driving on the centre line and forcing the other vehicle to swerve off the road.  There is no footpath along the road, which also presents safety issues for visitors and locals who walk to recreational areas of Ferrymead Park.

5.6       Further to investigating the issues, staff consider it appropriate to extend the no stopping restrictions to deter parking near the car park accesses and near the intersection.

5.7       Presently there is an approved proposal to extend the off-street parking, which should alleviate the peak parking demands. Otherwise the effect of any displaced parking is expected to be minimal.

5.8       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve the safety near the Heritage Park by improving sight lines, encouraging drivers to drive on their side of the road and for visitors to park in appropriate locations.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Ferrymead Park Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The proposal only affects staff and visitors at Ferrymead Heritage Park, who have been consulted prior to the proposal being developed. They are in full support of the new restrictions.

6.5       The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $800 to provide road markings plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the forward sight lines for drivers using Ferrymead Park Drive

·     Reduces the likelihood of a head on collision as drivers are not required to overtake parked vehicles

·     Improves the sight lines for visitors and staff leaving the car parks

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

·     Deters buses and other vehicles dropping off or picking up passengers at unsafe locations

·     Assists visitors crossing the road to and from the entrance to see oncoming traffic more clearly

6.16.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in some displacement of on-street parking

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for improving road safety in the local area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address the safety concerns of Ferrymead Heritage Park.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ferrymead Park Rd site plan

22

b

Ferrymead Park Rd location plan

23

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

9.        Lismore Street, Waltham - Proposed P120 Restrictions

Reference:

18/447385

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the provision of P120 restrictions on part of Lismore Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from local businesses, who expressed concerns along this section of road relating to the lack of short stay parking to accommodate visitors, customers and courier deliveries.

1.4       These measures have been requested to meet the requirements of nearby businesses.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         That pursuant to section 591 of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part 1 section 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw, approve that the part of Lismore Street as indicated in the attached drawing TG133024 Issue 1, dated 16/5/2018, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles. The maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 120 minutes.

2.         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 this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 –  Provide P120 parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for customers, visitors, suppliers and couriers to the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the displacement of 10 unrestricted parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Two business owners operate at this location requested a change to the existing restrictions outside their frontage, to create opportunities for visitors and customers and visitors. Some parking was available on-site, though is privately marked for employees and provides spaces for deliveries.

5.2       The problem was described as a neighbouring car repair company using on-street spaces throughout the day and overnight for vehicles being repaired. Additionally, many spaces were used by drivers parking all day who were not necessarily employed on Lismore Street. These issues consistently presented difficulties for customers, visitors and couriers in the area.

5.3       Consequently, parking restrictions have been requested to increase short stay parking opportunities at this location.  A 120-minute restriction was indicated to be appropriate for local business requirements.

5.4       Staff visited the site to examine the situation. At present parking is completely unrestricted along the whole street. Some double parking was observed whilst a courier delivery took place. The spaces of interest were in occupied by the vehicles for most of the working day. Staff also spoke to local business tenants who unanimously requested further parking opportunities for visitors and customers.

5.5       Staff consider the request as reasonable. The location is also relatively central along Lismore Street and is a short walking distance from other businesses in this part of Waltham, who would also benefit from the spaces being available.

5.6       It is recognised that there is a displacement of long stay parking that will inconvenience some drivers. However, the consultations have not generated objections which suggests that the drivers affected are located in separate areas and walk a substantial distance, perhaps even in the CBD.

5.7       The provision of short stay parking for businesses is also considered by the Christchurch Parking Strategy (Policy 6G) as a higher ranked use of on-street space in a commercial area, compared to commuter parking.

5.8       Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is supported by the local businesses and will be in their commercial interests.


 

6.   Option 1 – Provide P120 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide P120 restrictions on Lismore Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

6.5       The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports this option.

6.6       No letters of objection or requests for amendment were received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $800 to provide road markings and 3 signs plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    Part 1, clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for customers, visitors, suppliers and couriers to the nearby businesses

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the displacement of 10 unrestricted parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for increasing short stay parking in the local area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address the requested parking demands of the local businesses

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

36 Lismore St P120 site plan

30

b

36 Lismore St location plan

31

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

10.    Disraeli and Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P60 Restrictions

Reference:

18/553988

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the provision of P60 restrictions on one side of part of Disraeli Street and Orbell Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from the property owner whose tenants have requested more stay parking in the area.

1.4       These restrictions have been requested to provide increased parking turnover to assist visitors and customers associated with the nearby businesses.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         That pursuant to section 591 of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part 1 section 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw, approve that the part of Disraeli Street and Orbell Street as indicated in the attached drawing TG132019 Issue 1, dated 9/5/2018, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles. The maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 60 minutes.

2.         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 this report are revoked.

3.         That this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in this report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 –  Provide P60 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for customers, visitors, suppliers and couriers to the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the displacement of 14 unrestricted on-street parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business owner who owns a major property at this location requested a change to the existing restrictions outside their frontage, adjacent to the north side of Disraeli Street and the west side of Orbell Street. The problem was described as drivers parking all day at this location which was presenting difficulties for customers, visitors and couriers in the area.

5.2       Consequently, parking restrictions have been requested to improve short stay parking opportunities at this location.  A 60-minute restriction was indicated to be appropriate for local business requirements.

5.3       Staff visited the site to examine the situation. At present parking is completely unrestricted along these sides of the two streets.  On the south side of this section of Disraeli Street, there is a ten vehicle section of 30-minute parking.

5.4       Observations revealed that the spaces of interest were in occupied by the vehicles for most of the working day. Most of the existing P30 area was used by vehicles including for delivery purposes. Staff also spoke to local business tenants who explained their need for further parking opportunities for visitors and customers, who often require more 30-60 minutes.

5.5       Staff consider the request as reasonable as it will provide appropriate short stay opportunities for the current land use activities.  The location is also a short walking distance from other businesses in this part of Sydenham, who would also benefit from the spaces being available.

5.6       It is recognised that there is a displacement of long stay parking that will inconvenience some drivers. However, the consultations have not generated objections which suggests that the drivers affected are located in separate areas and walk a substantial distance, perhaps even in the CBD area.

5.7       The provision of short stay parking for businesses is also considered by the Christchurch Parking Strategy (Policy 6G) as a higher ranked use of on-street space in a commercial area, compared to commuter parking.

5.8       Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is supported by the local businesses and will be in their commercial interests.

6.   Option 1 – Provide P60 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide P60 restrictions on Disraeli Street and Orbell Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at the nearest 10 properties on Disraeli Street and Orbell Street.  Of significance is that some properties occupy a substantial area, so that the consultation extended considerably beyond the site area.

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

6.6       The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $800 to provide road markings and 4 signs plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    Part 1, clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides increased parking opportunity for customers, visitors, suppliers and couriers to the nearby businesses

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in the displacement of 14 unrestricted on-street parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for increasing short stay parking in the local area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address the requested parking demands of the local businesses

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Disraeli and Orbell Street site plan

38

b

Dsiraeli & Orbell St location plan

39

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

11.    Moore Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/556749

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on Moore Street in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The location is shown on Attachment B. 

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from local residents on this street, who expressed various concerns relating to inconsiderate parking.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure drivers do not park at inappropriate locations that result in the footpath being blocked, extending across driveways and causing difficulty for occasional larger vehicles.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Moore Street as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG132014 issue 1 dated 7/5/2018, is prohibited.

2.         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 this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Ensures that the risk of parked vehicle extending over driveways on the north west side is removed

·     Assists large vehicles such as rubbish trucks, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles to drive through safely

·     Ensures that the narrow footpath on the north west side remains clear

·     Assists some residents leaving their driveway, by improving sight lines

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Two residents in this locality raised concerns relating to parking activity that blocked driveways, blocked the footpath and resulted in large vehicles used for deliveries and rubbish collection being blocked.  The complaints were focussed on inappropriate parking on the northwest side.

5.2       Cars were also reported (with supporting photographs) to park on or near the road hump at the Strickland Street end, which meant that when a vehicle is waiting at the stop line on Moore Street, another vehicle turning in is blocked and must wait precariously on Strickland Street which can often be congested.

5.3       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, to evaluate the situation.  Moore Street is 7.0m wide and has footpaths on both side, though of differing widths. On the northwest side, the path is approximately 1.2m wide and on the south east is 1.7m wide. Attachment C shows photographs of the street and parking activity.

5.4       The kerbing on the northwest side is almost flush with the street for the majority of its length, which includes no change in kerb height at driveway locations, which may be a contributory factor to drivers not recognising driveway locations on that side. On the south east side of Moore Street, the kerbs are full height with cut downs at driveway locations.

5.5       Parking was observed to occur in a staggered fashion. Cars parking on the northwest side consistently parked partly on the footpath, which blocked the path that was already narrow.

5.6       Staff are aware of some inconvenience due to parking displacement. It is suspected that some vehicles are residents on Strickland Street who have lost some parking due to the Strickland Street cycle route project. 

5.7       The provision of parking ticks will improve the efficiency of using parking spaces on one side of the street. However, drivers will be expected to make better use of space on their property or to park a longer distance away from their property.

5.8       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve access on and through this street as well as the safety of pedestrians who walk on this street.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Moore Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners on Moore Street and the corner properties at each end which are addressed as Strickland Street and Browning Street.

6.5       Four responses were received who fully supported the proposal.  Two responses objected to the proposal, though one pointed out that he would support it if the proposal included new parking tick markings on the opposite side, to encourage drivers to use the space available more efficiently and maximise the spaces available. 

6.6       Consequently, the proposal was amended to include this.

6.7       The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation - $600 to provide road markings plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.11    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     Ensures that the risk of parked vehicle extending over driveways on the north west side is removed

·     Assists large vehicles such as rubbish trucks, delivery vehicles and emergency vehicles to drive through safely

·     Ensures that the narrow footpath on the north west side remains clear

·     Assists some residents leaving their driveway, by improving sight lines

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for improving road safety in the local area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains some unrestricted parking spaces.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of local residents

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Moore Street site plan

46

b

Moore Street location plan

47

c

Moore Street site photos

48

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

12.    Geraldine Street/Gresford Street, Edgeware - Proposed Formalising of Give Way Control and No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/567775

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of Give Way control on Geraldine Street (south) at its intersection with Gresford Street and associated No Stopping restrictions accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The location is shown on Attachment B. 

Origin of Report

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

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         That pursuant to section 334 of the Local Government Act 1974 and clauses 2.1 and 10.1 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 Give-Way control is imposed at all times and road markings and signs erected on Geraldine Street (south), at its intersection with Gresford Street and Geraldine Street (north), as indicated in the attached drawing TG133029 issue 1 dated 22/5/2018.

2.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Geraldine Street and Gresford Street as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133029 issue 1 dated 22/5/2018, is prohibited.

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 this report are revoked.

4.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

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 Give Way Control and provide No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Give Way control resolves an identified crash risk

·     Improves road safety as it clarifies priorities at this location

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     A small displacement of parking on-street

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Two residents on Geraldine Street have expressed safety concerns at this intersection. The residents referred to local observations that traffic on all approaches were unclear about relative priorities and that the intersection was regarded as unsafe. In addition, some inappropriate parking was indicated to occur close to the intersection, which required some drivers to overtake which increased risks to road safety.

5.2       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, to evaluate local conditions.  The only road marking is a solid centre line on the north approach.  The intersection has a change of surface texture in the form of block paving and the priorities appear ambiguous to all road users. Staff also observed that vehicles travelling on all approaches did not slow down noticeably. It is considered that cyclists and pedestrians would be particularly at risk at this location.

5.3       Staff checked the crash history of this area. Two crashes were recorded at the intersection, both involving opposing vehicles at this location. One occurred in 2013 and caused an injury. The other took place in 2006 though did not result in an injury.

5.4       Staff also recently determined the traffic volumes at this location for different times of the day. This confirmed that throughout the day that the Geraldine Street (south) approach traffic has the least traffic of the three. Consequently, this approach was selected to be the approach that should give way.  The sight lines were also checked, which are considered reasonable for this approach.

5.5       Consequently, staff have recommended the establishment of give control, together with no restrictions at the intersection, to improve sight lines and safety in this area.

5.6       The installation of give way control combined with no stopping restrictions will improve the safety at this location and displace parking to more appropriate locations.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install Give Way Control and No Stopping Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the installation of Give Way Control on Geraldine Street (south) at its intersection with Gresford Street and Geraldine Street (north) and no stopping restrictions.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners associated with the nearest 10 properties on Geraldine Street and Gresford Street.

6.5       The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports this option.

6.6       Three responses were received in support of the proposal. None were received that objected or requesting an amendment.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $700 to provide signing and road markings plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.10    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget – Signs Regulatory.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Give Way control resolves an identified crash risk

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

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

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     A small displacement of parking on-street

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not install any traffic controls on the intersection of Geraldine Street and Gresford Street and do not provide parking restrictions.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for improving road safety in the local area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

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

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:

·   Some unrestricted parking space is retained.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support an identified crash risk

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Geraldine St Gresford St site plan

54

b

Geraldine St Gresford St location plan

55

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

13.    Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Various Intersections Selwyn Street

Reference:

18/447456

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note

1.1       The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board previously considered this matter at its 18 May 2018 meeting and resolved:

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1.      Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time in the parts of road referred to as ‘Area B, Area D, Area F - Proposed No Stopping Restriction’ as indicated on Attachment A, drawing TG132081, dated 04/05/2018, attached to the agenda for this meeting.

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to approve the following parking restrictions:

2.2       Spreydon Cashmere Community Board approve ‘No Stopping' restrictions at the intersections of:

·    Selwyn Street and Ward Street

·    Selwyn Street and Poulson Street

2.3       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve ‘No Stopping' restrictions at the intersections of:

·    Selwyn Street and Ruskin Street

·    Selwyn Street and Burke Street

·    Selwyn Street and Fairfield Avenue

2.4       These proposals are shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

2.5       This report is staff generated in response to requests from a community board member.

3.   Significance

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

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

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

 

4.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time in the parts of road referred to as ‘Area A, Area C, Area E - Proposed No Stopping Restriction’ as indicated on Attachment A, drawing TG132081, dated 04/05/2018, attached to the agenda for this meeting.

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

5.1.2   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

5.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

5.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

5.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at Selwyn Street intersections.

5.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes some kerbside parking spaces close to the intersections.

 

6.   Context/Background

Summary

6.1       Vehicles approaching the intersection with Selwyn Street from minor intersecting roads can have limited visibility due to cars parked on Selwyn Street. The limited visibility increases the chance of a crash and reduces the intersections level of service.

6.2       The proposal allows for no stopping restrictions that has a minimal impact on existing kerbside parking for businesses and residential properties, while providing an improvement to intersection visibility that reduces the chances of a crash.

Background and Traffic Data

6.3       A community board member raised concerns regarding visibility at minor road intersections with Selwyn Street between Brougham Street and Harman Street. These intersections are:

§ Selwyn Street, Ward Street and Ruskin Street

§ Selwyn Street and Burke Street

§ Selwyn Street, Fairfield Avenue and Poulson Street

6.4       Selwyn Street and Burke Street is a T intersection, the remaining two intersections are stop controlled cross roads. 

6.5       Selwyn Street is classified as a collector road, and the area is primarily residential around the subject intersections, there are some business in these areas including; a Butchery, paint shop, ink production and furniture business, dairy and early childhood centre.

6.6       Selwyn Street between Brougham and Harman has an average weekday traffic (ADT) flow of approximately 7,500 vehicles per day (vpd).

6.7       Ward Street, Ruskin Street, Burke Street, Fairfield Avenue and Poulson Street are all classified as local roads and are in residential areas. Measured and estimated traffic volumes noted below:

·    Ward Street – Measured ADT – 550 vpd

·    Poulson Street - Measured ADT - 1,200 vpd

·    Fairfield Avenue - Measured ADT – 2,500 vpd

·    Burke Street - Estimated ADT - 550 – 2,500 vpd

·    Ruskin Street - Estimated ADT - 550 – 2,500 vpd

6.8       Urban KiwiRap software reports a medium high corridor risk on Selwyn Street. The subject intersections are reported as low to medium risk. Risk illustrated on Attachment B.

6.9       The NZTA crash data base reports six crashes recorded within 50m of the Selwyn/Ward/Ruskin intersection from 2007-2016.

6.10    Three minor injury crashes were recorded, injuring a total of seven people. No serious or fatalities recorded.

6.11    Two thirds of the crashes involved vehicles crossing or turning into Selwyn Street. The balance of accidents included one vehicle losing control on a straight road and the other colliding with a parked vehicle. No cyclists or pedestrians were recorded in crashes.

6.12    The proposal at Ward/Selwyn/Ruskin improves visibility and reduces chance of vehicle crossing crashes, ie vehicles stopping then turning or travelling cross Selwyn Street.

6.13    No stopping restrictions at other intersections shown also improve visibility and reduces chance of a crash.

6.14    The proposal effects on street parking supply. A reasonable level of residential and business parking remains. Offset parking supply is absorbed into the surrounding area.

7.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       Install 'No Stopping' restrictions on Selwyn Street, as shown on Attachment A.

7.2       This option allows for adequate residential kerbside parking outside property frontages.

 Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Council staff met with the operators of the butchery and Resene Paint shop prior to formal consultation.

7.6       The butchery operator and Resene Paint Shop operator support the proposal.

7.7       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by post. No further correspondence was received from property owners or property residents.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – No more than $250 to install road markings.

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

7.11    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

7.12    Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution, on any part of the road including parts of the road outside the carriageway.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.15    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

7.17    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks following approval from both community boards. Note that road marking is weather dependent.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Refer section 4

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Refer section 4

8.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

8.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

8.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on kerbside parking.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted intersection sightlines at the intersection and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

63

b

Road Safety Risk

64

 

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

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

14.    Road Stopping Application - Jubilee Street

Reference:

18/565538

Presenter(s):

Sarah Stuart, Property Consultant

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note

1.1       The Board previously considered this matter at its 28 May 2018 meeting.  The Board resolved:

That the report lay on the table pending staff advice on:

a.     The response to Mr Reid’s letter of 16 May 2018 to Council staff regarding the access requested and

b.     The options for formalising the historical access and the proposed access to 84B Bamford Street.

1.2       The response to Mr Reid’s letter of 16 May 2018 is attached.  (Attachment 1).

1.3       An update providing the options for formalising the historical and the proposed access is attached.  (Attachment 2).

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider options relating to ownership and/or access over the legal road and adjoining Council land, the traffic planning implications of allowing vehicular access onto Jubilee Street, and to recommend that Council supports the retention of the link strip and landscape area.

Origin of Report

2.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolution CNCL/2018/00027, that the Council:

                4.            Request that staff explore options relating to ownership and/or access over the legal road and adjoining Council owned land (the link strip) and report back to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  Noting that the Community Board requests advice regarding the traffic planning implications of the link strip in the context of future growth in the area.

3.   Significance

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

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

3.1.2   The significance is low because only two adjoining owners have expressed an interest in the issue. There is no apparent or anticipated public interest in the decision.  It has no impact on Maori, and the environmental social and cultural impacts are not significant. There is little risk or cost to Council and no impact on the Council’s ability to carry out its functions.  The decision can be reversed unless the land is disposed of and amalgamated into the title of an adjoining owner.

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

 

4.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board supports the retention of the link strip and landscape area for the technical reasons set out by the Transport Unit, and recommends that Council:

Substantive Issue

1.         Supports the retention of the link strip and landscape area (noting that as a consequence this does not provide the opportunity for future disposal);

Historic Issue

2.         Noting that permission for access had been given as an exception to deal with extenuating transport safety, delegates to the Manager Property Consultancy the task of giving formal effect to the formed access-way from 85 and 87 Rutherford Street over the link strip through an appropriate mechanism.

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.10 Transport advice is provided to ensure plans, projects and activities reflect Council's strategic transport vision

5.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Restrict vehicular access to Jubilee Street by retaining the status quo i.e. remove the opportunity for future disposal (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Allow vehicular access to Jubilee Street by creating an opportunity for road stopping through removal of the link strip.

5.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

5.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Status quo is maintained.  (The benefit of retaining the status quo is expected to increase over time as the area develops further and the size and number of commercial vehicles increases).

·     Consistent with Council resolution dated 22 March 2018 not to sell the link strip.

·     Consistent with Transport advice and best practice transport guidelines.

·     Safety provisions remain as residential and heavy industrial traffic are separated.

·     Quality access continues to be provided to the industrial zone.

·     Physical separation of the two land use activities (residential and industrial) is retained.

·     Amenity value of the landscape area is preserved.

·     Residential area continues to be protected from noise, dust and safety issues.

·     Two Scarlett Oak trees are preserved.

·     Retain control of a Council asset.

5.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Landscape area and link strip are not available for sale.

·     Council will have ongoing maintenance costs.

Option Analysis

5.4       The Council is at a point it needs to make a principled decision before it can consider the historic issue.  The principled decision has two options.

5.5       Option 1 is preferred because it recognises and protects the value inherent in the status quo.  This value incorporates land use and transportation features by separating residential and industrial zones, and adhering to best practice transportation guidelines.  The implication of this option is that the land cannot be disposed of i.e. there can be no road stopping nor sale of the landscape area or the link strip.

5.6       Option 2 is not recommended because it reduces the safety and amenity values that currently exist.

5.7       Whilst the principle decision of this report is whether to keep the link strip or not, the whole issue arises from a long standing request from an adjoining owner to acquire a portion of the road (the landscape area) and the link strip.  This request has been under discussion since 2002.

5.8       Several alternatives have been considered within each option to deal with that request and are outlined below.  These are not considered to be viable options and are inconsistent with the principle decision.

Alternatives Considered Under Each Option

5.9       Option 1

An alternative means of dealing with the link strip and the landscape area was considered within the context of restricting access to Jubilee Street.  This alternative effectively ‘moves’ the link strip to enable the landscape area and the existing link strip to be disposed of to an adjoining owner (without vehicular access to Jubilee Street). To ‘move’ the link strip a new one would need to be created at the formed boundary of Jubilee Street to replace the existing one.

The creation of a new link strip is not deemed to be a viable option for several reasons.

·   It is not the best solution according to the Transport advice received. 

·   It is not cost effective without the certainty of a successful road stopping process.  The creation of a new link strip would require: survey ($5,000 - $7,000), road stopping, an application to Crown Property Clearances ($337.33), and gazette advertising ($80) to legalise the link strip and create a new title for it ($135).  Staff costs for this process (around $4,000) would be unrecoverable. These costs may not be able to be on-charged to a road stopping applicant if the road stopping process is unsuccessful.

·   It does not provide a guaranteed solution because the road stopping process required to implement it would be subject to the LGA 1974 process which requires public notification, and the process may be stymied if objections were received and upheld.

The use of the LGA 1974 process was established in paragraph 5.26.6 of the Council report dated 22 March 2018.  If objections are received that the Council does not uphold them the application must be referred to the Environment Court which is empowered to make a final decision.  An unfavourable decision by the Environment Court would mean that the road stopping cannot proceed.

5.10    Option 2

The possibility of providing an adjoining owner (or owners) with a licence to cross the existing link strip and the landscape area to gain vehicular access onto Jubilee Street was suggested in the Community Board meeting dated 26 February 2018. 

This is not considered a viable solution because it is contrary to the Transport advice received and contrary to the very purpose of a link strip which is established to prevent vehicle access.  In addition to allow some owners in the street to cross the link strip may set a precedent for others also wanting vehicular access to Jubilee Street. 

 

6.   Context/Background

6.1       This report builds on the information provided in the report to Council dated 22 March 2018.

6.2       Council has been dealing with the long standing request from an adjoining owner to acquire “the land” outlined below.  Discussions on this matter have been ongoing since 2002 and have only increased in complexity.

6.3       There have been numerous endeavours to reach a conclusion.  The latest resulted in the Community Board considering the report dated 26 February 2018.

6.4       The Community Board resolved to:

4.         Request that staff explore options relating to ownership and/or access over the legal road and adjoining Council owned land (the link strip) and report back to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  Noting that the Community Board requests advice regarding the traffic planning implications of the link strip in the context of future growth in the area.

6.5       The Transport Unit previously supported the road stopping application.  In response to the Board’s resolution, Transport have reviewed the situation. Their current advice highlights the land use and transport effects of retaining the link strip and recommends that the existing environment (the status quo) be retained because it reflects best practice guidelines and separates the two zones.

6.6       A principled strategic decision firstly needs to be made on whether to restrict or allow vehicular access onto Jubilee Street by retaining or removing the link strip.

6.7       Once that decision is made the Community Board can then consider the issue of disposal.

The Land

6.8       The subject land (“the land”) comprises circa 130m2 and is shown on the plan below.  It consists of two parts as follows:

6.8.1   Approximately 6 m2 of link strip (“the link strip”) shown as Section 2, being part Section 1 SO 343171; and

6.8.2   Approximately 124 m2 of unformed legal road (“the landscape area”) to be stopped shown as Section 1.

 

Delegations

6.9       As outlined in paragraph 5.25 of the report to Council dated 22 March 2018 the Community Board holds the delegation to approve (or not approve) a road stopping. 

6.10    The Community Board does not hold the delegation to approve the sale of the link strip, and conversely cannot make the decision to retain the link strip.

6.11    The Council has the authority to decide what happens to the link strip i.e. whether it is retained or sold.

7.   Substantive Issue

Advice from Planning

The following advice was provided by the Planning Team:

7.1       As shown on the planning map below, Jubilee Street intersects land zoned residential (RSDT shown in yellow) on one side and Industrial General (pink IG) on the other side.  It services primarily industrial zoned land.

7.2       Woolston remains an important industrial area for the City, particularly as a location for Heavy Industry (IH Purple).  Whilst manufacturing has been a declining sector over the past few decades, the Woolston industrial area remains important due to its proximity to the Lyttelton Port and Bromley Wastewater Treatment Plant.  Industrial land in the north and south of the City is generally not very suitable for heavy (wet) industries, due to the presence of the unconfined aquifer and distance from the wastewater plant.

7.3       Woolston also contains land zoned Industrial General (IG) which provides for industrial and other compatible activities that can operate in close proximity to more sensitive zones such as residential.  The IG Zone is often used as a buffer zone to separate heavy industry from housing, as occurs in this part of Jubilee Street.

7.4       Aerial photography indicates that the IG Zoned land directly opposite this portion of 6F Jubilee Street, is used for industrial purposes (trailer storage).  There are no current or proposed plans to rezone this land for non-industrial purposes.

7.5       Council has recently completed a Business Land Capacity Assessment pursuant to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity that concludes that Christchurch has an oversupply of industrial land to meet needs to 2048.  It is therefore possible that some of this surplus industrial land may be appropriate for rezoning for another purpose over time, however no planning investigations have been initiated to date.

7.6       Notwithstanding the closure of some Woolston industries in recent years, the area is still zoned for industrial activity and is available for reuse by alternative industries.

7.7       Whether the link strip at 6F Jubilee Street is still required for transport reasons, is a matter for others in Council to advise on, as per the transport advice below.

Advice from the Transport Unit

The following advice was provided by the Transport Unit:

7.8       Further to the previous report, and at the request of the Community Board, the Transport Unit has reviewed the traffic planning implications of the link strip in the context of future growth in the area.

7.9       The matter of the proposed land sale in Jubilee Street has both transportation and planning implementations. The existing environment represents a quality policy position where transport and land use interaction are both managed together.  The transportation matters relate to Network Management and consideration of safety and efficiency, and the land use matters regard amenity.

Furthermore, the issue may result in RMA administrative issues, as the proposal (which constitutes a change to the environment) may counteract required mitigation associated with the establishment of Jubilee Street (through RMA 20011628), thereby possibly triggering need for a variation of the Consent under s127 of the RMA.

7.10    Land use

District Plan policy 16.2.3.2 (b) requires effects of reverse sensitivity from adjoining zones to be managed. In this case, the east side of Jubilee Street is a Residential Suburban Density Transition (RSDT) zone, and the west side is Industrial General.

Jubilee Street is the designated route servicing the Industrial Heavy zones, which includes activities such as United Fisheries.

To this extent, the existing environment includes a landscape strip and section of land which separates the residential properties from the Industrial zone and the industrial access road (Jubilee Street).

The existing environment also includes a ‘nil frontage’ approach to the residential zone, and fencing which protects the residential zone from noise, dust and general exposure to heavy-industrial related activities.  

7.11    Transportation

Jubilee Street is managed by Council as an ‘Over dimension vehicle route’; serving access by High Productivity Motor (Freight) vehicle (HPMVs) to the Industrial Heavy zone. Truck and trailer units were observed whilst on site with one such vehicle including a combination of 9 axle groups (about 25m long).

Jubilee Street is currently designed as part of a network management strategy to support the specific movement functions of these vehicles – providing wide lanes and no stopping restrictions on both sides of the road.

Best practice transport guidance (‘Austroads’) is used to inform transport design across the city. It considers five underlying principles to Network Operating plans, including:

·   Mobility

·   Safety

·   Access

·   Information

·   Amenity

The existing environment achieves these requirements, through provision of a quality design environment for HPMVs, and total separation of the residential zone.

7.12    Implication of selling whole of land area

The sale of the land parcel creates an opportunity for housing to ‘front onto’ and take vehicle access to and from Jubilee Street. This would be an outcome contrary to the objectives of policy 16.2.3.2(b), which identifies separation of residential zones and industrial zones, for purposes of ensuring suitable levels of available residential amenity. The implications of the residential developments ‘fronting onto’ Jubilee Street would create issues such as noise and dust, as well as introduce conflict points and safety concerns.

The land owner would possibly be entitled to develop a vehicle access, pending obtaining a vehicle crossing consent. The vehicle crossing consent is more concerned with construction aspects. Under the District Plan, the landowner may be able to develop a vehicle access by right (as a permitted activity), as at this stage the writer is unaware of any design matters which would render such an activity as non-compliant (i.e. needing resource consent).  

Following this, there would possibly be pressure from neighbouring sites to be granted access as well. It should be noted that the residential zone in question is one specified for higher densities, and therefore, vehicle accesses would be more heavily used than for ‘normal’ residential accesses.

Creating ‘frontage’ to Jubilee Street also runs risk of inviting pressures in the future for provision of on street parking, which would reduce the geometry available to HPMVs, and create more conflict points between residential traffic (including pedestrians) and HPMVs (where there are currently none).

7.13    Conclusion

In response to the Community Board’s request the Transport Unit has reviewed the traffic implications of the link strip in the context of future growth. 

The route is designed and managed in accordance with both District plan and best practice road design standards.

The sale of the land would allow the two zones to interact, which over time will result in:

·   Transport effects upon the safety and efficiency of the over dimensioned route (undermining quality of access to the industrial zone, and raising safety concerns by ‘mixing’ residential traffic with heavy industrial traffic).

·   Land use effects, as the residential zone is exposed to noise, dust, safety issues and general lower levels of amenity.

Given the recent consent for development at 30 Jubilee Street (for additional refrigeration units and loading areas), and a general move by industry towards larger delivery vehicles (including more HPMVs), the value of the current policy on Jubilee Street (of separation and quality infrastructure provision) is likely to increase over time.

It is therefore recommended that whatever agreement is reached is one which retains a physical separation of the two land use activities, in line with best practice policy.

Furthermore (notwithstanding the above), if the Consent requirements of Jubilee Street are altered, a s127 variation (of RMA20011628) may be required.

8.   Historic Issue

Existing Vehicular Access to Jubilee St

This is a legacy issue that needs tidying up.

8.1       A link strip runs along both sides of Jubilee Street between State Highway 74 (Rutherford St) and Bamford Street.  The extent of this is shown in red on the plan below:

 

8.2       In 2013 Council staff approved a vehicle crossing over the link strip to serve both 85 and 87 Rutherford Street, also owned by Mr Reid.  This is the only approved crossing of the link strip which separates the residential and industrial zones.  The crossing is shown below:

8.3       Whilst inconsistent with Transport strategy, the vehicle crossing above was provided as an exception to deal with transport safety in extenuating circumstances.  The crossing represented the safest option for the property at 87 Rutherford Street and provided the only practical access option for the house at the rear of the 85 Rutherford Street property due to the orientation of the garage. 

8.4       The location of the crossing provided the best (longest and clearest) line of sight to the Rutherford Street intersection whilst the no parking lines ensured that visibility was not limited.

8.5       The resolution relating to the historic issue will provide for the formalisation of this anomaly.

9.   Option 1 – Restrict vehicular access to Jubilee Street by retaining the status quo (preferred option)

Option Description

9.1       In maintaining the status quo, the existing link strip is retained to prevent vehicular access onto Jubilee Street and the landscape area acts as a buffer between residential and industrial zones in line with advice from the Transport Unit.

9.2       The implication of this option is that it removes the opportunity to dispose of the link strip and the landscape area.

Significance

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

9.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.6       As the two adjoining owners have expressed an interest in acquiring the land it is likely that they would not support this option.  The views of the wider community are not known at this stage. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.7.1   Inconsistency – N/A

9.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – N/A

9.7.3   Amendment necessary – N/A

Financial Implications

9.8       Cost of Implementation – No cost.

9.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Continued Council maintenance of the land.

9.10    Funding source – Transport operational budget.

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

9.12    No risks have been identified in retaining the status quo.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies - none – status quo.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – matter of days after Community Board decision.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Status quo is maintained.  (The benefit of retaining the status quo is expected to increase over time as the area develops further and the size and number of commercial vehicles increases).

·   Consistent with Council resolution dated 22 March 2018 not to sell the link strip.

·   Consistent with Transport advice and best practice transport guidelines.

·   Safety provisions remain as residential and heavy industrial traffic are separated.

·   Quality access continues to be provided to the industrial zone.

·   Physical separation of the two land use activities (residential and industrial) is retained.

·   Amenity value of the landscape area is preserved.

·   Residential area continues to be protected from noise, dust and safety issues.

·   Two Scarlett Oak trees are preserved.

·   Retain control of a Council asset.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Landscape area and link strip are not available for sale.

·   Council will have ongoing maintenance costs.

10. Option 2 – Allow vehicular access to Jubilee Street by supporting a road stopping proposal

Option Description

10.1    Allow vehicular access to Jubilee Street by creating an opportunity for road stopping that will require the sale of the link strip and landscape area to an adjoining owner by a closed tender process. 

Significance

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

10.3    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

10.4    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

10.5    The two adjoining owners would likely support this option because it would provide them with the opportunity to enter into a competitive tender process to purchase the link strip and landscape area from the Council.  The views of the wider community are not known.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

10.6.1 Inconsistency – contrary to Council’s strategic vision for transport; and contrary to the Council resolution dated 23 March 2018 (see paragraph 1.2) not to sell the link strip.  The passing of this resolution provided the opportunity to take a step back and reconsider the whole process with the benefit of updated Transport and Planning advice.

10.6.2 Reason for inconsistency – the sale of the link strip would allow vehicular access onto Jubilee Street whereas both the Council’s strategic vision for transport and the Council resolution supported the restriction of vehicular access.

10.6.3 Amendment necessary – No amendment is necessary as it is a one off exception but the decision to sell the link strip would need to go to the Council for approval.

Financial Implications

10.7    Cost of Implementation – road stopping costs will be recovered from the successful tenderer.

10.8    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – none.

10.9    Funding source – N/A.

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

10.11  There is a risk that the road stopping may not proceed if objections are received.  This risk will be borne by the successful tenderer who will be responsible for all costs associated with the road stopping in line with the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2009. The costs to the point objections are received will not be insignificant because they will include the cost of preparing the survey plan required under Schedule 10 of the LGA 1974.

Implementation

10.12  Implementation dependencies – The road stopping process required to legalise the link strip would be undertaken under the LGA 1974 process.  Because this requires public notification this option is dependent on there being no objections received and upheld by the Council.  In the event that the decision is referred to the Environment Court, because the Council does not uphold an objection, it is dependent on a favourable decision from the Environment Court.

10.13  Implementation timeframe – 3-12 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.14  The advantages of this option include:

·   It provides the adjoining owners with the opportunity to enter into a competitive tender process to purchase the link strip and landscape area from the Council.

·   Maintenance costs are reduced if a sale eventuates.

10.15  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Rejects Transport advice and is not consistent with best practice transport guidelines.

·   Contrary to the Council resolution dated 22 March 2018 not to sell the link strip.

·   Raises safety concerns by mixing residential traffic with heavy industrial traffic.

·   Undermines quality access to the industrial zone.

·   Removes the physical separation of two land use activities (residential and industrial).

·   Lowers amenity value if the landscape area is sold and exposes residential zone to noise, dust and safety issues.

·   The value of the status quo has no potential to increase in the future as expected.

·   Trees are not protected if they are sold (unless an encumbrance is placed on the title).

·   Lose control of a Council asset.

·   May trigger the need to vary the resource consent which established Jubilee St.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter to Mr L Reid in response to his letter of 16 May 2018

80

b

Staff Advice: In reply to Board Resolution of 28 May giving options for formalising Historical Access and Proposed Access - 20 June 2018

81

 

 

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

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Adele Radburnd - Senior Policy Planner

Mark Gregory - Transport Network Planner

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

15.    Property Review Process

Reference:

18/360716

Contact:

Angus Smith

Angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

9418502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to confirm the outcomes of a workshop at the end of last year which considered list of properties in their area that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased. In doing so this report seeks a recommendation from the Board to the Council on resolutions to formalise and initiate the next steps in the process.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to follow up on a Council resolution of 12 May 2016 Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00242 and related workshops held with Community Boards.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) 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 on the basis that this is largely a general report implementing a process that follows a number of workshops and engagement with the community Boards.

2.1.2   Additionally given the general nature of the assets the number of people effected and to what extent is generally nil to low. Any significance issues based on individual property specifics is likely to be attended to on an individual property at future stages and related decision points in the process.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations:

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

That the Council

1.         Approves retention of the following properties for a future strategic purpose.

Central

·    Land adjacent to the Christchurch Art Gallery 62 Gloucester Street

·    Para Site 78, 86-90, 94A, 106 Manchester Street, 224 Tuam Street, and 239 St Asaph Street

Linwood

·    Stopped Road (36 Broad Street) 36 Broad Street.

Heathcote

·    9 The Brae

2.         Declares the following properties surplus for disposal.

Heathcote

·    Erewhon Reserve 11 Erewhon Terrace

Linwood

·    Vacant Land (173F Dyers Road) 173F Dyers Road

3.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

·    Commence the sale process for the properties set out in resolution 2 above in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies. Including unilateral dealings where a tender is not practical.

·    Conclude the sale of the these properties on the best terms considered available, as supported by valuation advice and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

·    To do all things and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

4.         Supports retention of the following properties subject to the conditions below:

Central

·    Carlyle Reserve 1 Carlyle Street

Heathcote

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 185       Opawa Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 163 Opawa Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 167       Opawa Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 165       Opawa Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 360R Port Hills Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 153       Clarendon Terrace

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 100       Garlands Road

·    Roading Opawa Expressway 2 Kennedy Place

·    Garlands Reserve 124 Garlands Road

·    Heathcote Library 8 Martindales Road

·    Creche Land Sydenham Pre-School 113 Huxley Street

5.         Retention of the properties set out in resolution 4. above is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

·    Can be rationalised,

·    Satisfies a clearly identified need,

·    Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

·    Supports Council strategies,

·    Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

·    Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the LTP.

6.         The Community Board is delegated authority to make a retention decision for an alternative use so long as all of the conditions set out in resolution 5. above are satisfied to its satisfaction.

7.         Notes that Milton Street Depot 2 Barnett Avenue was originally included in this process, but was subsequently removed due to a 1 June 2017 Council resolution approving transfer to Development Christchurch Limited for regeneration purposes.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10 Consultancy projects managed: e.g. acquisition of property rights, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities

4.2       The Council has adopted a process for determining the future use of properties that are no longer being utilised for a public work i.e. delivering a service or activity.

4.3       That process has been socialised with Community Board’s on a couple of occasions, with a workshop at the end of last year to categorise the properties into specific actions. This report serves to formally adopt those actions.

4.4       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Endorse the Community Boards Workshopped Recommendations (preferred)

·     Option 2 - Adopt different categorisations and outcomes

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6       Both options are relatively similar and almost have the same advantages. The difference is that under option 2 the Community Board and Council can review and change the categorisation from that discussed in the workshop and therefore future use of the properties.

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports Community Board process, thinking and desires to date.

·     Creates certainty.

·     Provides continued momentum to the process.

·     Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes,

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Nil

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council purchases properties for the delivery of a service / activity / public work.  When in use properties are held and funded by the business unit delivering that service / activity or project.

5.2       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally held it is prudent for Council to make a decision to determine the future use of that property.  Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk e.g.

5.2.1   Reputational for not proactively and prudently managing and utilising property assets.

5.2.2   Being reactively driven by unilateral unsolicited proposals to outcomes. 

5.2.3   Legislative non-compliance e.g. not dealing with offer back obligations (section 40 of the Public works Act) appropriately.

5.2.4   Not meeting the principles of the Local Government Act.

5.2.5   Inappropriate uses developing e.g. vandalism, unsanctioned occupations.

5.2.6   Poor maintenance and compliance.

5.3       Holding property without an agreed reason, purpose or use also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets / money.

5.4       In general terms the Council only holds land that is:

5.4.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.4.2   Held for strategic purposes e.g. project,; and

5.4.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.5       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

Process

5.6       A flow chart of the process is attached, but in summary is as follows:

5.6.1   When a property ceases to be held for the purpose of delivering the activity or service for which it was originally purchased then it is circularised around business units, Community Boards and possible stakeholders to assess and identify community needs and develop options to for alternative public uses.

5.6.2   This is generally done on a semi regular basis, dictated by the number of properties that are no longer required for their original purpose an exception basis as necessity requires, or to achieve a proactive and prudent approach as dictated by the number and timing of properties identified.

5.6.3   A period of six months is provided to establish the alternative public uses and options.

5.6.4   The results are collated into an options report which would usually incorporate as one of the options sale.

5.6.5   The Council then resolve future use based on staff and Community Board recommendations.

5.7       Retaining the property for an alternative public use needs:

5.7.1   To be rationalised,

5.7.2   A clearly identified need,

5.7.3   To be supported by a sound and robust business case,

5.7.4   Supporting Council strategies,

5.7.5   Established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans

5.7.6   To have an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor and budget provision within the LTP

5.8       It is important to note that this is not a process to review or rationalise the Council’s property holdings that are currently held by asset owning units to deliver a service or activity. That would need to be a separate organisation wide exercise.

Current status

5.9       The community boards have considered a list of properties in the ward that are no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased and in doing so have categorised them as follows:

5.9.1   Held - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be retained for a strategic purpose.

5.9.2   Sold - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be declared surplus for disposal.

5.9.3   Used - Deciding on which properties the Board and staff will work on over the coming months to identify as having alternative public uses for recommending to the Council for a decision.

5.10    A list of the properties that are within this community board’s area and how they were categorised at the work shop at the end of last year is attached – “Workshop Recommendations”.  This report seeks endorsement of those categories and thereby implementation of either sale (5.9.2 above) or a process to determine an alternative use (5.9.3 above).

5.10.1 Sale of a property would be implemented immediately in accordance with the resolutions above and normal council practices and policies.

5.10.2 The intention to implement a process to support an alternative future use decision will see staff working with the community board to design a process for each property to help deliver an outcome e.g. tender/request for proposal, expression of interest, community engagement, consultation, unilateral dealing etc.


 

6.   Option 1 – Endorse the Community Boards Workshopped Recommendations (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       That the Community Board reviews the outcomes from the workshop as per attached. Endorses these and recommends to the Council that it pass the resolutions above in section 3 - Staff Recommendations. This would enable some positive initiatives to be undertaken to achieve sale or determining future use. As well as creating certainty for those properties to be retained for a strategic purpose.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The substantive decisions required from this report do not require any specific consultation to seek community views and preferences. Attending to the future use of some of the properties may require some form of consultation and / or community engagement and that will be built into the process developed by staff and the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is  with Council’s Plans and Policies

6.6.1   Inconsistency – Not applicable

6.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not applicable

6.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – The specific resolutions of this report have no direct impact, though future individual property decisions may have. These will need to be considered separately depending on the circumstances.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable refer above.

6.9       Funding source – Not applicable refer above.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    The purpose of this process and decision making is to create certainty and reduce risk.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - On going collaborative work and support between staff and the Community Board to determine future uses.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – April to September initiate sale process or community engagement / consultation process depending on the property and its categorisation.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports Community Board process, thinking and desires to date.

·   Creates certainty.

·   Provides continued momentum to the process.

·   Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes,

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.   Option 2 – Adopt different categorisations and outcomes

Option Description

7.1       That the Community Board reviews the outcomes from the workshop as per attached. Adopts and recommends those with some changes for Council to consider. In doing so the Council could adopt those or re-categorise as it sees fit. Accordingly appropriately amending and passing the resolutions above in section 3 - Staff Recommendations. This would enable some positive initiatives to be undertaken to achieve sale or determining future use, as well as creating certainty for those properties to be retained for a strategic purpose.

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 not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The substantive decisions required from this report do not require any specific consultation to seek community views and preferences. Attending to the future use of some of the properties may require some form of consultation and / or community engagement and that will be built into the process developed by staff and the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is  with Council’s Plans and Policies

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Not applicable

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not applicable

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – The specific resolutions of this report have no direct impact. Though future individual property decisions may have. These will need to be considered separately depending on the circumstances.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable refer above.

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable refer above.

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not 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.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11.1 The purpose of this process and decision making is to create certainty and reduce risk.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - On going collaborative work and support between staff and the Community Board to determine future uses.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – April to September initiate sale process or community engagement / consultation process depending on the property and its categorisation.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Creates certainty.

·   Provides continued momentum to the process.

·   Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes,

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council’s decisions may not align with the Community boards desired outcomes.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Central Property List

96

b

Heathcote Property list

105

c

Linwood Property List

122

d

Workshop Outcomes

127

 

 

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

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

16.    Applications to 2017/18 Youth Development Fund - Annamarie Lipp and Mikayla Frances May Werahiko

Reference:

18/528384

Presenter(s):

Diana Saxton, Community Recreation Adviser

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

1.2       There is currently $750 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated as a result of two applications being received.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Transfer $250 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund.

2.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Annamarie Lipp towards competing in the Junior World track Championship in Switzerland in August 2018.

3.         Approves a grant of $500 from it 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Mikayla Frances May Werahiko towards representing New Zealand at WBSC Women’s World Softball Championships in Japan in August 2018 and a warm up tournament in Canada in July 2018.

4.   Applicant 1 – Annamarie Lipp

4.1       Annamarie is a 17 year old from Woolston.  She is one of 14 riders selected to represent New Zealand at the Junior World Track Championships in Switzerland, in August 2018.

4.2       Annamarie has been cycling since Year 9, participating in school competitions before progressing to track cycling through the Canterbury track cycling development programme. She participates in a road race most weeks and track cycling twice a week during summer.

4.3       Annamarie is a highly talented, accomplished athlete. She has won numerous competitions including U17 school nationals, U17 girls Le Race, 2nd in points race and team pursuit at Oceania track championships and in 2018 came 2nd in points race, 3rd in individual pursuit, third in omnium, 1st in team pursuit and NZ track nationals, and 3rd in the road race at NZ road nationals.

4.4       Annamarie is a focused athlete and her goal is to represent New Zealand at both the Commonwealth and Olympic Games. The Junior World Championships are a significant event in a cyclist’s development path as they prepare for a career in the Elite cycling ranks.  New Zealand has an excellent record in the Junior World Championships with 24 medals won in the last four years.  Future development for these junior athletes includes Cycling New Zealand carding and development support, Oceania Championships, UCI World Cups, UCI Senior World Championships, Commonwealth Games and Olympic Games.

4.5       Annamarie is a year 13 student at Catholic Cathedral College. Each rider is required to make a contribution of approximately $10,000 to the overall costs of the trip.  Annamarie has a part time job, and is doing fundraising activities including a Give a Little page, a quiz night, a raffle and sausage sizzles.  She is also applying to the Inspire Foundation and Coffee Culture for assistance.  To date Annamarie has raised $1,500 towards the cost of the trip.

4.6       The total overall cost of the campaign is estimated to be $217,935 or $15,567 per rider. This cost does not include overhead or staff salary costs for Cycling New Zealand staff supporting the team.  The following table provides a breakdown of the total cost of the campaign, including Annamarie Lipp to compete at the Junior World Track Championships in Switzerland in August 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Flights

75,721

Excess baggage

7,976

Insurance

9,669

Accommodation

48,967

Meals

32,575

Daily Allowances

6,248

Vehicle Hire

5,880

Tolls/parking

300

Petrol

2,600

Shuttle/Taxis

4,650

Venue Hire

7,630

World Champs Uniform

5,530

Contingencies

5,500

                                                                                                 Total

$217,935

 

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

5.   Applicant 2 – Mikayla Frances May Werahiko

5.1       Mikayla is a 22 year old from Bromley.  She has been selected for the New Zealand Women’s Softball Team (White Sox) to compete in the World Baseball Softball Confederation’s (WBSC) Women’s Championships to be held in Japan in August 2018.  The tour includes a warm up tournament in Canada in July prior to heading to Japan.

5.2       Mikayla has been playing softball since she was five years old. She has played for Canterbury since she was 10 years old and for New Zealand from 17 years old. Mikayla has attended two Junior World Series and is now competing in her third Women’s World Series. She also attends several international tournaments each year. 

5.3       Mikayla has received several awards in Canterbury and the award for New Zealand’s Softball Female Emerging Player.  She was also nominated for the Marriotts Hadlee Sports Awards - Young Sportsperson of the Year.

5.4       Mikayla is aiming to play for New Zealand at the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo and to make the 2019 Under23 New Zealand team for the World Series.

5.5       Mikayla is a third year student studying Sociology and also enjoys playing basketball and running softball skills clinics for junior players with Canterbury Softball and the Sydenham/Kereru Softball Club. The tour is self-funded and Mikayla is raising funds with a housie fundraiser, t-shirt sales, sausage sizzles, poi sales, and by running softball skills clinic.

5.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the total cost of the tour for Mikayla to compete in the World Baseball Softball Confederation’s (WBSC) Women’s Championships in Japan in August 2018, and a warm up tournament in Canada in July 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

International Airfares

3,750

 

Excess baggage

105

 

Accommodation (Vancouver)

1,472

 

Accommodation (Ichihara)

985

 

Accommodation (Narita)

2,224

 

Meals (Vancouver)

726

 

Meals (Ichihara)

237

 

Meals (Narita)

855

 

Transport

79

 

Apparel

1,037

 

Entry fee

37

 

Gifts

105

 

Travel Insurance

201

 

Medical

421

 

Laundry

79

 

Communications

32

 

Team Activities

198

 

Other Incidentals/Contingency

305

 

Total

12,848

 

Less Income

(9,273)

 

Levy Total

 3,575

 

 

5.7       This is the second time the applicant has applied for funding.  The first application was made in 2012/13 for Mikayla to compete in the U19 Junior Softball World Series. 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a)  This report contains:

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

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

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

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

17.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund - Various Organisations

Reference:

18/394771

Presenter(s):

Bruce Coleman, Community Development Advisor and Diana Saxton, Community Recreation Advisor

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisations listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

58255

Heathcote Valley Community Association

Community Centre Activator wage support

$5,000

58232

Victoria Neighbourhood Association

Publication costs for Photographic history

$2,188

58331

Cashmere Technical Football Club Inc.

Goal Posts for Woolston and Edmonds Parks

$10,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of applications being received.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $5,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Heathcote Valley Community Association towards Community Centre Activator’s wages.

2.         Approves a grant of $2,188 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Victoria Neighbourhood Association towards publication of photographic history of the area.

3.         Approves a grant a grant of $10,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Cashmere Technical Football Club Inc towards goal posts at Woolston and Edmonds Parks.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$259,457.26

$201,855.25

$57,602.01

$40,414.01

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Assessment Matrix - Heathcote Valley Community Association

135

b

Assessment Matrix - Victoria Neighbourhood Association

136

c

Assessment Matrix - Cashmere Technical Football Club - Goal Posts for Woolston and Edmonds Parks

137

 

 

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

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

18.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Cashmere Technical Football Incorporated

Reference:

18/564472

Presenter(s):

Diana Saxton, Community Recreation Advisor

 

1.   Secretarial Note

1.1       The Board previously considered this matter at its 28 May 2018 meeting.  It was decided to let the report lie on the table until the Board’s 20 June 2018 meeting.

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00057797

Cashmere Technical Football Club Incorporated

Whittington and Garrick Parks Maintenance

$43,087

 

Origin of Report

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

3.   Significance

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

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

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

4.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Declines making a grant of $43,087 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Cashmere Technical Football Club Incorporated towards the costs of maintaining Whittington and Garrick park playing fields.

5.   Key Points

5.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$259,457.26

$201,855.25

$57,602.01

$57,602.01

 

5.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

5.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Assessment Matrix - Cashmere Technical Football Club Incorporated

141

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

19.    Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - June 2018

Reference:

18/501868

Presenter(s):

Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for June 2018.

2.         Consider allocating $22,240 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to fund two crime prevention cameras in Linwood Village.

3.         Resolve to carry for any funds left over from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund and balances from 2017/18 Board Projects.

4.         Consider holding Summer with your Neighbours instead of Neighbourhood Week 2018.

5.         Confirm the Board members who will speak at the opening of the Woolston Community Library facility in August 2018.

6.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline, Board Newsletter and the Board Report to the Council’s 5 July 2018 meeting.

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Lower Ōpāwaho/Heathcote Landscape Plan – at the Board’s 29 January 2018 meeting the Board:

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

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

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

Staff have provided the following update on the above resolution:

The Technical Services and Design Landscape team have been asked to put together a landscape plan for the lower Opawaho/ Heathcote River by the Parks Unit.  It has been over 25 years since the “Lower Heathcote Environmental Enhancement Proposals” were undertaken to improve the amenity of the river.  This work resulted in a number of walkway connections and replanting but now needs reviewing and refreshing.

 

Currently there are a number of significant projects under construction or in the planning stages along this stretch of the river.  These include sediment removal in the Woolston Cut, Dredging above the barrage , Pump station 233 at Bells Creek, major cycleway improvements , Ferrymead master plan proposals and a landscape plan for Radley Park. It is important that there is continuity between these works and any potential gaps identified that would enhance what is significant environmental and recreational asset for the local community and Christchurch.

 

The intention is to put together a plan that shows current and future works and where there are opportunities for new projects or gaps to maintain the lower Heathcote as a significant environmental asset.

 

The team are preparing to attend the Board’s July 2018 seminar.

 

3.1.2   Former Skellerup Site, Garlands Road - at the Board’s 3 April 2018 meeting the Board:

Request staff advice regarding a car crushing unit on the former Skellerup site bounded by Garlands Road, Cumnor Terrace and Marshall Street including information on the following:

1.    When the Christchurch District Plan was being reviewed, what were the environmental concerns staff identified around the former Skellerup industrial zoned site?

2.    What are the buffer zones in relation to this site? e.g. landscaping.

3.    What consents need to be obtained for a change of use for the site?

4.    Is the level of noise now being generated from the site within the District Plan Noise Levels?

 

Staff advice on the above Board request is attached.  (Attachment A).

3.1.3   Linwood Alcohol Ban Extension - at the Board’s 16 April 2018 seminar the Board noted that during the Council’s Long Term Plan hearings members of the community were not aware that the Linwood Village Alcohol Ban had been extended. 

Staff have undertaken the following actions:

·    Letterbox flyer drop advising the Linwood Village community of the extension of the alcohol ban;

·    Flyers given to New Zealand Police to assist with distribution;

·    Posters distributed;

·    Newsline article published on 26 April 2018;

·    Newspaper advertisement to be published on 16 June 2018.

 

3.1.4   Linwood Park Development Plan – at the Board’s 16 May 2018 the Board:

Request staff to report to the Board on the Linwood Park Concept Plan by June 2018.

Staff advice on the above Board request is attached. (Attachment B).

3.1.5   Linwood Village: Crime Prevention Cameras – at the Board’s 28 May 2018 the Board received information updating on cameras in the Linwood Village area.  Staff advised that they were waiting for a quote for two cameras and would update the Board when this had been received.  The Board had expressed interest in funding the installation of the cameras.  At that meeting the Board resolved that it:

Supports the installation of two security/anti-crime cameras in Linwood Village and requests New Zealand Police to submit a formal quote for funding.

The cost of supply and installation of two crime prevention cameras is $22,240.00 including GST..  One of the cameras will be situated at the intersection of Gloucester Street and Stanmore Road and the other camera will be situated at the intersection of Worcester Street and Stanmore Road.  The Police will cover ongoing operational and maintenance costs, and store information collected from the camera.

Staff request that the Board consider allocating $22,240 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to fund two crime prevention cameras in Linwood Village.

3.1.6   Formalising Parking on Berms - at the Board’s 28 May 2018 meeting the Board, in relation to the report on 70 Rudds Road, Linwood – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions:

Requested staff advice on formalising some parking on the berm nearest to park.

The following staff advice has been received:

It is noted that the Community Board has requested advice about formalising some parking on the berm nearest to the park on Rudds Road. However, under clause 11(1) of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 parking on berms is prohibited. This clause is to prevent damage to surfaces that are not intended for vehicle parking.

 

11. No parking on certain parts of the road

1.    A person must not stop, stand or park a motor vehicle, wholly or partially, on that part of any road which is laid out as a cultivated area, being a garden or grass berm. 

2.    A person must not stop, stand or park, wholly or partially, a motor vehicle on that part of any road which has been separated from the roadway by a kerb that is a paved or other surfaced landscaped area, with or without a planted area, and whether or not it is designed for use by pedestrians.

3.    A person may stop, stand or park a motor vehicle in contravention of sub-clauses (1) and (2) if-

a.    that part of the road is designed and constructed to accommodate a parked vehicle; or

b.    an authorised officer has given written permission to stop, stand or park a vehicle in that part of the road; or

c.     the Council, by resolution, has allowed motor vehicles to stop, stand, or park in that part of the road.

4.    Clause 6.2(2) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 applies to this clause, and clause 6.2(1) of that Rule does not apply.

Explanatory note: This clause still allows a person to stop, stand or park a motor vehicle off the roadway where there is no kerb unless otherwise restricted by signs and/or markings. For example, a person may park a motor vehicle off the roadway on a rural road on the grass verge or on a beachfront area.
All resolutions made under this clause by the Council will be recorded in a register which is available to members of the public on request.

3.1.7   Scott Park Landscape Plan 2018 – The concept plan for Scott Park was approved as part of the Main Road Master Plan.  The removal of the earthquake damaged bowls and petanque club facilities provided an opportunity for redevelopment of the park in a manner more appropriate for its location.

·     The Master plan outlined the intent of the concept plan and considerations for further development including better access to the water, improved facilities for water sports, integration with the coastal pathway and to provide a gateway experience, amongst others.

·     During the intervening period limited development has been possible utilising earthquake renewals and other budgets to bring the park up to a functioning level of operation. The implementation budget associated with the Master Plan is now enabling closer consideration ($30,000) and subsequent implementation ($150,000) of the concept plan objectives.

·     The inaugural meeting of the Scott Park Working party was held in October 2017 to bring together user groups, the community and the Community Board to oversee the development of a landscape plan. The Working Party has agreed on a set of objectives and made other requests for the landscape architect to consider:

Revised Objectives for landscape plan brief:

1.         Guided by approved concept plan in Main Rd Master Plan;

2.         Implementation likely to be staged. Include low cost option;

3.         MPYC leased area considerations;

4.         Improve physical access to the water, foreshore and facilities for all;

5.         Options to improve awareness and integration of toilet and other park facilities, heritage, context of wider area / Estuary, access within park / to water, etc, through interpretation, way finding signage and line marking;

6.         Allow for growth in water sports;

7.         Multi-use of site / facilities;

8.         Amenity landscaping incorporating suitable quick growing shade trees;

9.         Reduce hard surfacing, greater area of grass (refer existing concept);

10.       Up to date parking requirements for water sports and general use;

11.       Need and opportunity for amenity facilities – seating, picnic tables, cycle stands, washdown;

12.       Ensure sufficient open grass area(s) for windsports, and casual use;

13.       Quality gateway experience;

14.       Recognise future retention of Penfolds cottage, possibly improved fencing;

15.       Consistency of design style with Coastal pathway, Major Cycle route;

16.       Safety in design – water sports, cycling and pedestrian interaction.

Comments from Scott Park Working Party April 2018 meeting were:

1.1       More / larger trees required in front of shed;

1.2       Interpretation to include safety around access to coastal area;

1.3       Look at increasing planting north side of shed;

1.4       Car parking use not to be restricted to specific users;

1.5       Improved access to coast to include wider access way, lift vegetation, signage;

1.6       Extend gravel beach;

1.7       Tidy area adjacent to Scouts shed including minimising / removing planting;

1.8       Create path to toilet as per plan;

1.9       Mark out trailer parking;

1.10    Include few more car parks;

1.11    20-30 boats during regattas;

1.12    Install low planting on strip between drive and C/pathway.

·     A draft plan has now been prepared and is to be sent to Working party members in June to consider with their particular groups and report back to staff. Based on the congruity of the responses a decision will be made as to whether another Working Party meeting is required to discuss responses prior to consultation.

·     Some of the features of the plan include better sight lines and markings to direct people using the coastal pathway and other park users to the shore, jetty, picnic areas and other facilities. The physical ability to access the jetty and shore more directly from the bridge and other parts of the pathway have been indicated. User friendly signage, planting, and more efficient car parking are also features.

·     Staff have been advised that given the circumstances it would be appropriate for limited consultation of the landscape plan which would include a mail out to local residents and the opportunity for public input via Have Your Say. At the time of writing the consultation period has not been determined but is proposed to be around August/September 2018 with a report to the Community Board seeking plan approval to follow shortly thereafter.  The Board will receive an update before consultation begins.

3.1.8   Neighbourhood Week and Summer with your Neighbours – In 2017 the Board was asked to decide on whether it wished to continue with Neighbourhood Week as it had been held in the past, or to participate in the pilot of Summer with your Neighbours to allow for residents to pick any time from November to March to host an event to get to know their neighbours.  The Board decided that they wanted to continue with Neighbourhood Week and that if residents wanted to hold events later than November this would still be acceptable.

The decision to continue with Neighbourhood Week was made by only the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  The marketing of Neighbourhood Week/Summer with your Neighbours was done for the whole city with no resource or budget for separate Neighbourhood marketing materials.  Due to city wide marketing, last year some residents were confused by Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board being the only Community Board not participating in the Summer with your Neighbours pilot scheme.  This resulted in staff locally generating additional information for the board area. The pilot scheme has had good feedback from applicants who like the flexibility of the extended dates. 

The Board is asked to consider whether to be part of Summer with your Neighbours and accept events for the whole summer consistent with the other Community Boards throughout the city or continue to have Neighbourhood Week.  

3.1.9   Richmond Village – Street Sweeping Frequency – At the Board’s 16 May 2018 meeting the Board received a public forum presentation from Ms Gillian Sheard.  Ms Sheard tabled photos and commented that she would like the streets around Richmond Village swept more often.

The following staff advice has been received:

The current frequency for sweeping alongside Richmond Village Mall is every six weeks which is less than other malls.  Staff are seeking to make this more frequent taking into account changes needed to alter resources.  Increasing the frequency has budget implications.  The Levels of Service are generally based on historic needs, albeit sweeping was universally further reduced across the whole city over three years ago, which did extenuate the issues.

Staff are planning through this calendar year to have wholesale change, if needed, and as funding permits to focus on key areas.  There is no additional funding in the next financial year however some roads (within the contract as a whole) may be feasible to do less often so other roads can be increased. 

3.1.10 Woolston Community Library – Things are currently going well and the project is on schedule.

·   Brickwork is complete.

·   The building is now weather-tight.

·   The interior has been painted, the joinery has been installed, and the tiling is underway.

·   Flooring will start being laid next week.

·   Construction has started on the courtyard.

·   Completion is expected early July.

Car Park and Laneway - An amendment to the building consent was approved to carry out the upgrade to the car park and laneway. The main contractor will carry out this work as a variation to their contract.  Council, however, is required to go out for public consultation to change the 'legal road' to a 'shared path' (what this project refers to as the 'laneway').  This aspect  has been included in the Ferry Road Master Plan consultation (see below), which is currently open to the public.

 

Once the consultation period has closed on the 3 July 2018, an Options Report will be presented to the Board for their decision.

 

Consequently, we can lay the new paving but not install the cycles stands or Kowhai tree and coronation stone until we have the Board's approval to change the status.

 

Construction has started on the rear car park.  If all goes well with that, i.e. the weather, and the Board's decision on the use of the laneway isn't delayed in any way, the opening date will be in August 2018.

 

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

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

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

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

Improvements to Woolston Village Centre

5 June – 3 July 2018

 

3.3       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.3.1   There was no update at time of writing this report.

3.4       Board Reporting

3.4.1   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in Newsline, Newsletter and the Board Report to the Council.

4.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

4.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

4.1.1   Attached is the Accountability report for the 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.  The Accountability Report was shared with the Board at a workshop in May 2018. (Attachment E)

4.2       Inner City East Revitalisation Project: The Board has requested monthly updates on progress. The last update was on 28 May 2018  

4.2.1   Establishment of the Working Group: The Inner City East Revitalisation Project Working Group has now been established and had its first two meetings. To set up the group, independent facilitator Jane Higgins met individually with nominees to discuss the group’s brief. The group includes an excellent mix of skills and experience, as well as real commitment to the Inner City East. The members of the working group are: Chris Baxter, Laura Gartner, Margaret Knowles, Dominic McKeown, John Miller, Kieran Simpson, Jenny Smith, Jamie Stevenson and Bruce Coleman.

4.2.2   The group has agreed to meet fortnightly for the time being to build momentum around its work. The group met first on 17th May. The meeting focused on key aspects of the recent history of the area, the process of community consultation undertaken to date and a work plan for the near future. It was agreed that the first task would be to address one of the key themes that has emerged through the consultation process: tidiness and the issue of rubbish collection, including large scale inorganic rubbish.

4.2.3   The group’s second meeting on 30th May addressed this issue, focusing on the problem of inorganic rubbish being dumped on the roadside. The group developed an action plan to be put in place over the next month. The group’s third meeting will hear from Joshua Neville, Council Planner, Urban Regeneration, about key demographic characteristics of the Inner City East area in order to deepen member’s understanding of the area.

4.2.4   Reference Group: The establishment of a reference group will be addressed shortly by the working group. It is expected that the reference group may include representatives from agencies/organisations such as the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand Corporation, New Zealand Police and the Canterbury Regional Council.  The role of the Reference Group will likely be to help the Working Group with advice and getting elements of the work plan achieved.

4.2.5   Advisory Group: Jane Higgins will continue to meet with the small group that originally formed the acting working group. This group, now an advisory group, will support Jane with aspects of the working group processes and projects, and issues coming out of reference group meetings.

The membership of the Working Group is attached for the Board’s information. (Attachment F).

4.2.6   Submission to the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan

Based on consultations to date the interim working group were able to identify key issues for the inner city east area that needed to be put on the agenda through the long term plan process.  These were presented to the Council via a submission from Te Whare Roimata.

·     Improvements to Doris Lusk reserve including a review of its purpose and place in the community and completion of the sculptural play equipment included in the Linwood Village Master Plan.

·     Purchase of land in the Inner City East/Linwood Village area for a community hub.

·     Review of the residential planning guidelines for the area, in preparation for District Plan powers being returned to the Council, to ensure rules are in place to protect the character, heritage and amenity of the area and encourage housing that reflects local needs.

·     Inorganic rubbish collection for the area.

·     Review the design of the Inner City East/Linwood section of the Rapanui Shag Rock Cycleway to reflect community concerns about its safety and effectiveness.

4.2.7   Housing First progress 

The Housing First was started in May 2018 in Christchurch.  The key workers have been appointed and welcomed with a powhiri held recently at Te Whare Roimata. A kaupapa Māori framework for the programme has been developed in recognition of the fact that about 75 per cent of the long term homeless in Christchurch are Māori. A cultural advisor and a kaupapa Māori development worker have been seconded from Te Whare Roimata to help develop the Housing First model to fit Christchurch’s particular circumstances.

A launch of the Housing First project in Christchurch is expected to take place shortly.

4.3       Richmond Residents and Business Association

4.3.1   Over the past six months concern has been expressed over the state of the retail sector at the north end of Stanmore Road.  Actions by some residents and business owners, such as working bees and talking to business owners, resulted in only partial improvements.  The ensuing discussions generated an understanding of some of the wider issues facing the Richmond area including local roading issues, issues around the Dudley Creek developments and the future of the residential red zone.

4.3.2   A community engagement evening was held at Avebury House on 15 May 2018 to further discuss the issues and look at the possible responses.  An analysis of the feedback indicated that there was significant support to set a Richmond Residents and Business Association.

4.3.3   A meeting was held at Avebury House on 29 May 2018 to form an establishment committee, have some initial discussions about the main elements of a constitution and establish the main issues that the organisation should tackle first.

The establishment committee is made up of Hayley Guglietta (Akiva Limited, Avebury House Trust, Richmond Community Garden Trust) as Chairperson, Murray James (Maiden Group) as Treasurer, and David Duffy (Strategic Planner) as Secretary.  Committee members are Jennifer Dalziel (Local accountant and resident), Dante Fyfe (Local resident and insurance professional), Angela Hart (Local Resident), Vicki Ware (Local Resident), Ashley Crook (Local Resident), and Kevin Crook (Local Resident).

4.4       Community Facilities

4.4.1   Ōpāwa Volunteer Library Rebuild

The Ōpāwa Volunteer Library Rebuild Working Group has continued to meet to develop the Design Brief for the Library Rebuild. At the most recent meeting the Working Group provided feedback on the draft Design Brief. The Working Group will next agree on the final Design Brief, which will be issued in the Request for Proposal for a Design/Build contract. A Staff Evaluation Panel will score the contractors’ proposals, and the Working Group will make a recommendation regarding which to accept. The Community Board will consider the proposals and the Working Group’s recommendation, and decide which to accept. The Working Group and Community Board will continue to be updated on a monthly basis throughout the construction phase.

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

5.1       Research Project: The Needs of Older Adults in Greater Linwood

Sarah Wylie, an independent Social Researcher, has been contracted by the Community Governance Team to undertake research about the needs of older adults in Greater Linwood. The project will identify needs, aspirations, preferences, and key motivators for older adults to become involved in their community.  It is intended that in addition to informing future decision-making and planning, the research will also inform the direction of an age-friendly community model in the Greater Linwood area. Where possible, the research will seek to explore the needs of older people from diverse cultural groups within the community.

The researcher will contact Community Board members and invite them to be part of a focus group, in order to gain their insight into the needs of the older population in the area. Community Board members will also be invited to assist with gathering data, via a very short question interview, with a small group of residents.    

The research project will commence on 18 June, and the draft report will be available mid-September 2018.

5.2       Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust

On 16 May the Community Board resolved to: Lay the report for a grant of $40,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust towards Youth Space in Eastgate Mall, on the table until the Board have received a presentation on the work of the Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust.

The Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust is working with its board of trustees to further develop the project and its parameters, and the Board will be updated on progress in the near future.

5.3       Events Report Back

5.3.1   The Big Chill for children and families will be held in Linwood Park on 7 July from noon to 3pm.  If wet, the event will be held in Eastgate Shopping Centre and the Linwood Library. Planning is well underway with the events team as it is also the official opening of KidsFest. Local activity providers, community organisations, and the Linwood Library are all contributing to the event.

5.3.2   Winter Blast is scheduled for local seniors on 18 July from 1.30 to 3.30pm at Woolston Club.  It will be an afternoon of interactive entertainment with comedians Ethel and Bethel. Admission to the event is by gold coin or a non-perishable food item. Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden will assist with serving the afternoon tea provided by Woolston Club.

5.3.3   Greening the East: Based on the Board request, have done a preliminary assessment of the streets that the Board indicated they would like to see trees planted.  Attaches is a screen shot of highlighted areas that will be investigated.

Staff are now conducting assessments of potential planting sites for trees so that the project can be scoped.  A landscape architect is currently through all the issues relating to where we can and can't plant trees within identified areas and to provide estimated costings and suggestions for possible tree species.  Depending on what is found, the project area may be increased.  An update will be given to the Board  in September 2018 when it is expected that the current work will be complete.

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

6.1       May period transitioning to the winter cool and wet weather shows a reduction in the scheduled maintenance programme with little growth. Renovations for the autumn period are now complete. Sports parks are well into the season now being monitored for play availability as soft surface conditions become more apparent and field closures required.

6.2       Hedges and amenity garden tidy up scheduled are underway and on programme. This will involve clearing areas and lot of pruning.

6.3       Scheduled Parks Maintenance Programme for June:

Activity

Frequency per month

Ornamental mowing

1

Amenity mowing

1

Informal mowing

 

Winter sport field mowing

2

Winter sport line marking

2

Chemical weed control

1

Ornamental garden maintenance

2

 

Performance:

6.4       Recreational Services audited quality performance for May was 87%.; breakdown below

 

 

Capital Works Projects:

6.5       Work is in process for some of the approved LTP projects for this financial year. Plant border renewals and condition assessed infill requirements are aligning into a package to go out as one contract.  It is envisaged to get this in place for this financial year with work undertaken the following over a period approved for the next three years.

7.   Community Board Funding Update

As at 20 June 2018:

7.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $58,352.01 Funding table is Attachment G.

7.2       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $57,602.01.

7.3       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $750.00.

7.4       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $0.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Staff Advice: Former Skellerup Site, Garlands Road National Steel Limited

155

b

Staff Advice: Linwood Park Development Plan

159

c

City Wide Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report - May 2018

162

d

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Actions Updates -  June  2018

163

e

Hagley Ferrymead 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund Accountability Report

167

f

The Inner City East Revitalisation Project Working Group Membership - June 2018

203

g

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

204

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Civic & International Relations Coordinator

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

20 June 2018

 

 

20.  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.