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:                                     Monday 16 July 2018

Time:                                    5.00pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

11 July 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

16 July 2018

 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C       8.       Briefings.......................................................................................................................... 17

Staff Reports

C       9.       Muritai Terrace, Mount Pleasant - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.................. 19

C       10.     Humboldt Street, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions........................... 27

C       11.     19 Tuawera Terrace, Clifton - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions........................... 35

C       12.     192 Bealey Avenue - Proposed Extension To No Stopping Restrictions................... 43

C       13.     Ely Street (East), Christchurch Central - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions......... 51

C       14.     Matlock Street/Randolph Street, Woolston - Proposed All Stop Control............... 59

B       15.     Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project - Quarterly Progress Report............................................................................................................. 67

C       16.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund....................... 87

C       17.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund - New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective............................................................................ 91

C       18.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - July 2018 95

 

B       19.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 118 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 2 July 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

Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project – Quarterly Progress Report (Agenda Item 15. refers)

Bridie Sweetman, Law and Policy Advisor and Sue Merrett, Street Outreach Coordinator will speak on behalf of New Zealand Prostitutes Collective.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 2 July 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

2 July 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

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00111

Community Board Decision

That an apology from Tim Lindley for absence and an apology for lateness from Brenda Lowe-Johnson be accepted.

Alexandra Davids/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                         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/2018/00112

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 20 June 2018 be confirmed.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                          Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1  Wakatu Avenue, Moncks Bay – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Part B

Mr Tommy Milnes, local resident,  addressed the Board in support of the proposed No Stopping Restrictions on Wakatu Avenue, Moncks Bay.

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

Item 7 of these minutes refers.

 

7.   Wakatu Avenue, Moncks Bay - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report.

The Board also took into consideration the deputation from Mr Tommy Milnes (Item 5.1 of these minutes refers).

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00113 (Original staff recommendations accepted 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 Wakatu Avenue as shown as broken yellow lines on the drawing TG133032 issue 1 dated 28/5/2018, 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.

Darrell Latham/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment (Continued)

 

5.2  Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk Building - Operational Use Options (Agenda Item 12 refers)

Part B

1.      Mr Allan and Mrs Jenny Gillies, on behalf of the Colourful Company, addressed the Board on the report for the  proposed Operational Use Options for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.  Ms Gillies explained that she has  been using the space for the Enchanted Garden exhibition since 2016.  The public is charged entry for the exhibition, which covers its costs, however the exhibition does not make a profit.

Ms Gillies objected to the classification of the Tea Kiosk as being commercial use as stated in the staff report.  She was of the view that it should have been classified as being community use as opposed to commercial use, because  many community groups, including schools, tertiary institutions, retirement homes  and overseas tourists visit the exhibition. 

2.      Ali Jones, addressed the Board on the report for the  proposed Operational Use Options for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.  Ms Jones outlined the value that the exhibition put on by the Colourful Company brings to many diverse groups,  and outlined her disappointment that it was considered a commercial as opposed to a community facility.  Ms Jones did not support the proposed use of the building by the Horticultural Society, and suggested that the Botanic Gardens Information Centre may be a better space for the society.

3.      Clare Elliot, resident,  addressed the Board on the report for the  proposed Operational Use Options for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.  Ms Elliot outlined the experience of visiting the exhibition by the Colourful Company, as well as the location of the kiosk, which she believes gives life to that section of the Botanic Gardens. 

4.      Mr Alan Joliffe, President and Ms Ray King, Vice President, of the Christchurch Horticultural Society addressed the Board on the report for the proposed Operational Use Options for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.  Mr Joliffe outlined the knowledge and previous work of the members of the Canterbury Horticultural Society’s Board.

Mr Joliffe stated that he believes that the building is suitable for the working needs of the society, and did not believe the old information centre would be suitable.  He stated that he also believed that it was planned to be used as the science/conservation area in the future.

5.      Ms Jeanette Christensen, on behalf of the Friends of the Botanic Gardens, addressed the Board on the report for the proposed Operational Use Options for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.  Ms Christensen outlined the working relationship with the Canterbury Horticultural Society, in particular the volunteer work done by the Friends in support of the community and educational work provided by the Society.  Ms Christensen stated that the Friends of the Botanic Gardens are in favour of the Christchurch Horticultural Society being granted a lease for use of the Tea Kiosk building.

Following questions by the Board, the Chairperson thanked the presenters for their deputations.

 

Item 12 of these minutes refers.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnson arrived at the meeting at 3.47pm

 

12. Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk Building - Operational Use Options

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend to Council:

1.         That the operational use for the available premises within the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building be determined as community based, for the duration of a fixed term lease.

2.         Acknowledge that only one response of a community use nature was received during the Request for Information process, that respondent being the Canterbury Horticultural Society.

3.         Note the willingness of the Canterbury Horticultural Society to promote the building as a shared community space, with a portion of the premises able to be hired by other groups.

4.         That a lease be granted to the Canterbury Horticultural Society, pursuant to Section 61(2) of the Reserves Act, for a period of five years, over premises located within the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building, being approximately 200square metres, on terms as consistent with this report.

5.         Note upon expiry of the five year lease term, the Council will review and determine, in their sole discretion, whether a further extension be granted.

6.         Grant delegated authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude lease negotiations and documentation with respect to Recommendation 4.

 

Board Consideration

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report.

The Board also took into consideration the deputations from the Colourful Company, Ali Jones, Clare Elliot, Mr Alan Joliffe and Ms Ray King on behalf of the Christchurch Horticultural Society and Ms Jeanette Christensen, on behalf of the Friends of the Botanic Gardens, (Item 5.1 of these minutes refers).

The Board consider that the Jenny Gillies (Colourful Company) proposal could be considered as community use and therefore should also be considered as an operational use for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building.

Community Board Decided LCHB/2018/00114

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the operational use for the available premises within the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk building be determined as community based, for the duration of a fixed term lease.

Jake McLellan/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.23pm and reconvened at 4.35pm

 

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2018/00115

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommend that the Council

2.         Request staff to advise the Council if the Colourful Company proposal for the Botanic Gardens Tea Kiosk is community use: and if so then;

a.         To undertake a process and provide a report to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board that enables the Board to compare the two community use proposals and make a recommendation to the Council.

b.         Note the Council’s Healthy Food Action Plan (22 June 2017), Edible plants Action Point 13: Investigate the opportunity to utilise the old Tea House in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens as an environment centre/educational facility for teaching the community how to grow and cook food, minimise food waste and compost and request staff to consider the potential uses of the Botanic Gardens former Information Centre and provide information on this as they relate to this recommendation.

Deon Swiggs/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                    Carried

11. Rose Historic Chapel - Agreement With The Rose Historic Chapel Trust to Manage the Chapel

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00116 (Original staff recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Request staff to publicly advertise the proposal to grant a lease to The Rose Historic Chapel Trust over that part of Rose Historic Chapel Reserve at 866 Colombo Street, an area of approximately 1463 square metres with legal description being Lot 2 Deposited Plan 68418 held for the purpose of a Historic Reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 and shown on the plan (Attachment A attached to the meeting agenda).

2.         Authorise staff to make arrangements to convene a Hearings Panel to consider any objections that cannot be satisfied, with the Hearings Panel to make a recommendation to the Council for a decision.

3.         In the event that there are no unresolved objections, then:

a.         In its capacity as the Minister of Conservation's Delegate, recommend the Chief Executive gives consent to the lease in accordance with 58A of the Reserves Act 1977.

b.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to i. below:

i.          Finalising lease documentation to The Rose Historic Chapel Trust for a period of up to 10 years with annual rental based on a return of operating surplus income as prescribed in this report.

Deon Swiggs/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

8.   Drummond Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00117 (Original staff recommendations accepted 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 Drummond Street as shown as broken yellow lines on the drawing TG133030 issue 1 dated 24/5/2018, 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 devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1.are in place.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

9.   18 Lancaster Street, Waltham - Proposed P120 Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00118 (Original staff recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

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 Lancaster Street as indicated in the drawing TG132027 Issue 1, dated 18/5/2018, attached to the meeting agenda, 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 1.are revoked.

3.         That this resolution will take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1,are in place.

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

10. 368 Wilsons Road North, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Staff Recommendations 

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 Wilsons Road North shown as broken yellow lines on the drawing TG133010 dated 30/4/2018, 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.

 

Board Consideration

The Board considered the proposal to remove car parking in the area of 368 Wilsons Road North.  The Board agreed that whilst the sight line is challenging, this was no worse than other nearby locations.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00119

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 Wilsons Road North shown as broken yellow lines on the tabled drawing (number TG133010 Issue 2 dated 2/07/2018), is prohibited. (Attachment A).

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 devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1. are in place.

Sara Templeton/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                      Carried

Darrell Latham voted against the resolution, and requested that his vote be recorded.

 

Attachments

a     369 Wilsons Road - Board Resolution Plan   

 

13. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

The following information was exchanged at this meeting:

·   Odour ControlPhillipstown – the Board were advised that Council has approved budget to address significant odour sources including the bio-filter at Olliviers Reserve to control odour in Phillipstown.

·   Linwood Park – the Board discussed the state of the paved areas within Linwood Park.

·   Local Lives Book Launch – the Board received a copy of the recently published book on “Local  Lives - A History of Addington”.

·   Environment Canterbury Passenger Transport – the Board noted the concerns raised by the Bromley community on the proposed changes to Bus Routes 145 and 545.   

 

13.1   Richmond Village

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Request staff advice on the replacement of the north Stanmore Road trees by the Richmond Village.

 

14  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00120

Part C

That at 5.04pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 89 of the agenda be adopted.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                             Carried

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 5.13pm.

Meeting concluded at 5.32pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 16th DAY OF JULY 2018.     

 

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/699525

Presenter(s):

Liz Beaven, Community Board Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Ruth Dyson

Future Use of Redcliffs School Building.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 16 July 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence from Ruth Dyson regarding Future Use of Redcliffs School Building

16

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

8.        Briefings

Reference:

18/704441

Presenter(s):

Liz Beaven, Community Board Adviser

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Gayhurst Bridge

Wayne Gallot

Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

9.        Muritai Terrace, Mount Pleasant - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/613204

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 Muritai Crescent in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The location is shown on Attachment B and site photographs are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from a local resident, who expressed concerns relating to access difficulties because of inconsiderate parking.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure drivers do not park at inappropriate locations that result in vehicles being able to turn in and out of driveways and to turn around at the end of the street.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by 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 Muritai Crescent as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133040 issue 1 dated 9/6/2018, 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:

4.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of casualties on the road 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:

·     Ensures that residents in this locality can safely turn in and out of their properties

·     Enables all vehicles to have sufficient space to turn around in the street

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A resident on this street raised concerns relating to parking activity that blocked driveways and caused substantial difficulties for all vehicles being able to turn around within the street. 

5.2       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, to evaluate the situation.  Muritai Crescent has a varying road wide though is typically 5-6m wide. No footpath is provided and the edges consists of either steep sloped embankment or a fence line. Attachment C shows photographs of the street and parking activity.

5.3       This location is also classified as the end of the street. It is feasible to drive further south east, though this is private property. Consequently, this section of the street is the usual location to attempt to turn around. No formal turning head is provided and vehicles must turn in the road.

5.4       Parking was observed to occur in a random manner and it was apparent that residents often had to make multiple manoeuvres to turn in and out of their property.  Consequently, staff support no stopping restrictions to provide improved turning space.

5.5       Staff are aware of some inconvenience due to parking displacement. However, there are other on-street opportunities further up the street that do not affect the access of driveways or turning space.

5.6       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve access to and from properties on this section of the street

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Muritai Crescent in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners on the nearest 10 properties on Muritai Crescent. The Mount Pleasant Community Association was also consulted.

6.5       Five responses were received who fully supported the proposal.  One response also requested restrictions across the double garage area, which also created problems. This request is considered reasonable and has been added.

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 - $400 to provide 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.

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:

·     Ensures that residents in this locality can safely turn in and out of their properties

·     Enables all vehicles to have sufficient space to turn around in the street

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

6.18    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 turning space 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

17 Muritau Cresc NSR site plan

24

b

17 Murita Cr location plan

25

c

17 Murita Crescent site photos

26

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

10.    Humboldt Street, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/613212

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 Humboldt Street in accordance with Attachment A. The location is shown on Attachment B. 

Origin of Report

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

1.3       These measures have been requested to ensure drivers do not park at inappropriate locations that result in difficulties accessing 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 Humboldt Street as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133042 issue 1 dated 9/6/2018, 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:

4.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of casualties on the road 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:

·     Assists some residents accessing and leaving their driveway, by improving their turning space and sight lines

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

·     The staggered nature of the restrictions acting as a ‘chicane’ and encourage driving at relatively low speeds

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces some parking to other locations along the street

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A residents in this locality raised concerns relating to parking activity that caused substantial difficulties accessing driveways and resulted in large vehicles used for deliveries and rubbish collection being blocked.  The concerns were focussed on inappropriate parking on the northwest side.

5.2       The crash records were investigated. Two crashes were recorded near the proposed restrictions. A non-injury crash occurred in 2007 adjacent to no.14 that caused an injury. This involved a vehicle losing control during darkness and colliding with a power pole. The other occurred during daylight in 2006 at the bend location (connecting Humboldt and Cameron Street) where a car lost control at the bend and hit a fence.

5.3       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, including after the working day to evaluate the situation.  Humboldt Street is approximately 6.5 wide on average and has unrestricted parking on both sides footpaths on both sides. After the working day, the parking activity was observed to be staggered along the street, though there was substantial spare capacity (approximately 50%) of on-street parking spaces.

5.4       Staff agree with the request for no stopping restrictions and have also included sections at the bend location near Cameron Street, together with opposite the driveway to 15 and 17.

5.5       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will improve access on and through this street as well as assisting larger vehicles travelling through this area.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Humboldt 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 all the tenants and property owners on Humboldt Street.

6.5       Four responses were received which supported the proposal.  Two responses requested additional restrictions near their property, which have been added and are supported by the residents near the amendment. Consequently, the proposal was amended to include this.

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 - $600 to provide 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.

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:

·     Assists some residents accessing and leaving their driveway, by improving their turning space and sight lines

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

·     The staggered nature of the restrictions acting as a ‘chicane’ and encourage driving at relatively low speeds

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations along the street

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

Humboldt St site plan

32

b

Humboldt St location plan

33

 

 

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

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

11.    19 Tuawera Terrace, Clifton - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/613234

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 Tuawera Terrace in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The location is shown on Attachment B and photographs of the area near the proposal are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from two residents, who expressed safety and operational concerns turning out of their properties at 19 and 19A Tuawera Terrace.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure residents have an appropriate sight line to see westbound vehicles on Tuawera Terrace and are not blocked by vehicles parked on the street.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by 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 Tuawera Terrace as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133051 issue 1 dated 19/6/2018, 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:

4.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of casualties on the road 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:

·     Assists residents of 15, 19, 19A and 19B to have an improved sight line upon leaving their shared driveway

·     Provides increased turning space to access these properties from the street

·     Improves the forward sight lines on Tuawera Terrace at a bend and hill location

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking spaces to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Two residents in this locality raised concerns relating to parking activity that blocked turns in and out of driveways and blocked sight lines upon turning out. 

5.2       Staff met the customer and assessed the local site environment. Tuawera Terrace is a relatively narrow residential road with a steep winding alignment. The driveway that is of interest is shared between numbers 15, 19, 19A and 19B.

5.3       Upon leaving this driveway, the view to the right is very poor. The road slopes steeply downhill and bends right. It is already challenging without parked vehicles and staff consider that restrictions are certainly warranted on the south side, east of the shared driveway.

5.4       Opposite the shared driveway, staff observed some on-street parking taking place. It was apparent that this constrained turning movements and resulting in passing traffic having to approach each other face on. Staff consider this to be an unacceptable risk to drivers that can be mitigated by parking restrictions.

5.5       All the nearby properties have substantial capacity for on-site parking and there are other on-street parking opportunities located within a minute’s walk that do not constrain the turns whilst accessing other properties.  Consequently staff recommend short lengths of restrictions on sections of the north side of Tuawera Terrace.

5.6       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will improve access along this street as well as the safety of passing traffic, whilst they travel along the bend to the east of the shared access.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Tuawera Terrace 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 Tuawera Terrace.

6.5       Three responses were received in support. No responses opposed the proposal nor requested an amendment.

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 - $300 to provide 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.

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:

·     Assists residents of 15, 19, 19A and 19B to have an improved sight line upon leaving their shared driveway

·     Provides increased turning space to access these properties from the street

·     Improves the forward sight lines on Tuawera Terrace at a bend and hill location

6.18    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 safety concerns of local residents

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tuawera Terrace NSR site plan

40

b

Tuawera Terrace location plan

41

c

Site photos at 19 Tuawera Terrace

42

 

 

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

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

12.    192 Bealey Avenue - Proposed Extension To No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/613247

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 Bealey Avenue 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 a local business, who expressed concerns relating to a constrained sight line towards the right, whilst turning onto Bealey Avenue.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure drivers can see clearly before and select an appropriate gap in westbound traffic.

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 Bealey Avenue as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133044 issue 1 dated 9/6/2018, 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 (2018 - 2028):

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 sight line for drivers turning onto Bealey Ave by improving their sight lines

·     Ensures that drivers on Bealey Avenue turning left at Manchester Street have a clear path as they diverge from the main westbound traffic stream

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A business owner at 192 Bealey Avenue (which operates as a health clinic) expressed concerns relating to safety at their access location onto the avenue.

5.2       At this location, drivers from the clinic must turn left, as Bealey Avenue is median divided. Their access is approximately 25 metres east of the Manchester Street intersection. On the westbound approach of Bealey Avenue, there is a left turn lane, which includes a diverging taper which ends approximately 10 metres east of the access.

5.3       Whilst there are currently 2 car lengths of restrictions east of the access, the business owner requested more, due to the speeds of approaching vehicles on Bealey Avenue, combined with the acute sight line angle towards traffic using the left turning lane.

5.4       Staff visited the site to understand the situation. At the location, where parking is requested to be restricted, the nearside lane has a diverging taper for approximately 2 car lengths. Cars were observed to park on this section, despite encroaching the taper marking and into the ‘live’ left turning lane

5.5       Staff tried driving from the business egress and turned left. It was evident that westbound traffic on Bealey Avenue travels relatively quickly and that vehicles frequently changed lanes. Parked vehicles obscured some vehicles and it was challenging to see westbound traffic in the nearside lane. Consequently staff agree with the request to extend the existing no stopping restrictions to improve sight lines.

5.6       Staff are aware of some inconvenience due to parking displacement. However, it is expected that most of the drivers work in the CBD and walk into their places of employment. In any case, since the parked vehicles would encroach the taper markings, it is considered unacceptable that vehicles should be parked here. 

5.7       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve the safety for drivers turning onto Bealey Avenue from this address.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide an extension to the no stopping restrictions on Bealey Avenue 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 186-202 Bealey Avenue.

6.5       Two responses were received who fully supported the proposal.  None were received that requested an amendment or opposed the proposal.

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 - $300 to provide 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.

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:

·     Improves the sight line for drivers turning onto Bealey Ave by improving their sight lines

·     Ensures that drivers on Bealey Avenue turning left at Manchester Street have a clear path as they diverge from the main westbound traffic stream

6.18    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 safety concerns of the local business

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

192 Bealey Ave NSR site plan

48

b

192 Bealey Ave location plan

49

 

 

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

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

13.    Ely Street (East), Christchurch Central - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/613373

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 Ely 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 driveways becoming difficult to access and causing difficulties for 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 Ely Street as shown as broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133053 issue 1 dated 16/6/2018, 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 :

4.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of casualties on the road 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:

·     Ensures that the risk of a parked vehicle blocking turns in and out of a driveway is removed

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

·     When the parking demands are at their highest, the proposal creates a passing place for two way traffic

·     Provides better turning space for all vehicles at the eastern intersection

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The local residents group in this locality raised concerns relating to parking activity that blocked driveways and resulted in large vehicles such as for deliveries and rubbish collection being blocked. 

5.2       The site consists of two locations: one opposite the driveway of no.38 Ely Street and the eastern end of the street which splits into three approaches, which are all named Ely Street.

5.3       The crash records were investigated, which showed that none had been recorded. This is not considered surprising as, due to the narrow road cross section and high parking activity, vehicle speeds are expected to be low and crashes may purely involve unreported damage to parked vehicles.

5.4       Staff visited the site at different times of the day, to evaluate the situation.  Ely Street is extremely narrow and only 4.5m wide between kerbs. The whole street has unrestricted parking and parking demands are high for the majority of its length. Most properties do have off-street parking facilities, though the demands exceed the off-street provision.

5.5       Staff met with the residents group and the resident at 38 Ely Street. It was clearly demonstrated that when a vehicle is parked opposite this driveway and others are parked nearby, access is partially blocked and extremely difficult to access her property. Several manoeuvres are often required, each requiring substantial skill to avoid damage to other parked vehicles.  Due to the level of parking activity, this situation is reported to occur on a daily basis.

5.6       Whilst there space constraints along the whole of Ely Street, this combination of factors is considered to be an unreasonable burden to the resident at this location and staff consider that some restrictions are warranted to ease the situation.

5.7       In the case of the intersection, the residents group advised that only occasional parking occurs near this location, typically overnight and weekends. However, when this does take place, it causes substantial difficulties for local drivers in all directions, since turning space is highly constrained and forces drivers to overrun footpaths or reverse around a tight bend.  Staff consider this to be an unreasonable situation and recommend no stopping restrictions at the intersection

5.8       Staff are aware of some inconvenience due to parking displacement. However in the case of the location near no.38 the proposal relates to the loss of one (albeit long) parking space.  This is considered a reasonable compromise, in comparison to the substantial difficulties experienced by the local resident.  At the intersection, as the layout is extremely constrained, staff consider that this should be kept clear at all times to accommodate access by all vehicles including refuse trucks and potentially emergency vehicles

5.9       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve access to properties and along the eastern end of this street.

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

6.5       Two responses were received who fully supported the proposal.  The property owner of no. 35 (who lives in Hastings) did not object but stated he thought it appropriate to ‘connect’ the restriction at 35 to the restrictions at the intersection. He later went on to question why 35 should be inconvenienced and not at 21. 

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 - $600 to provide 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.

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:

·     Ensures that the risk of a parked vehicle blocking turns in and out of a driveway on is removed

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

·     When the parking demands are at their highest, the proposal creates a passing place for two way traffic

·     Provides better turning space for all vehicles at the eastern intersection

6.18    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 access and 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

Ely Street (east) site plan

56

b

Ely Street (east) location plan

57

 

 

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

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

14.    Matlock Street/Randolph Street, Woolston - Proposed All Stop Control

Reference:

18/613393

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 an All Stop control at the intersection of Matlock Street and Randolph Road with Attachment A.

1.2       The location is shown on Attachment B and site photographs are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from local residents on this street, who expressed safety concerns at this intersection.

1.4       These measures have been proposed to equalise priorities and reduce approach speeds, which in combination, will improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by 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 Stop control is imposed at all times and road markings and signs erected on all of the approaches at the intersection of Matlock Street and Randolph Road, as indicated on the attached drawing TG133052 issue 1 dated 16/6/2018, 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 (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Traffic Safety and Efficiency

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6.1 Reduce the number of casualties on the road network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Provide All Stop control (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces speeds on all approaches, thus reducing the crash risk

·     Provides equal priority for all approaching drivers

·     Reduces the appeal of Matlock Street being a short cut from Aldwins Road

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Drivers being unclear about priorities when drivers are waiting at other approaches

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Residents in this locality raised safety concerns relating to this intersection. This related to difficulties for drivers on Randolph Road being able to turn out safely.

5.2       This intersection has four single lane approaches, which connect at right angles. Randolph Road is controlled by stop signs.  Previously (up to 2015), the intersection had different priorities; Matlock Road (west) and Randolph Road (south) had give way control to the right angled major route. Staff checked the crash records which showed that in 2016 a crash occurred that resulted in a minor injury, caused by a vehicle failing to give way.

5.3       Staff visited the site at different times of the day to investigate. It is apparent on site that the driver’s sight lines at the limit lines are very constrained due to power poles and fence lines being close to the road boundaries.  Traffic flows on all approaches are relatively similar for most of the day.

5.4       No stopping restrictions are in place that ensure all approaches remain clear of parked vehicles. All road markings and signs are in good condition.

5.5       This intersection is located a short distance (125m) from the Aldwins Road and its approach to the Ferry Road intersection. It was evident that some southbound drivers on Aldwins Road chose to turn left onto Matlock Street as a short cut to avoid delays at the traffic signals. Consequently these drivers travelled relatively quickly along Matlock Street and added to the safety risks to drivers stopping on Randolph Road choosing an appropriate gap on Matlock Street.

5.6       Staff consider that adding stop control to Matlock Street will slow down traffic on Matlock Street and ensure that all drivers approach the intersection with equal care and attention.

5.7       The installation of all stop control will improve access on and through this street as well as the safety of pedestrians who walk on this street. 

5.8       Four way stop control intersections are currently in effect at other locations in Christchurch which have similar levels of traffic. The locations include Rimu Street/Rata Street in Riccarton and Blankney Street/Witham Street in Hornby.  These intersections have an excellent safety record, with no reported crashes on the last 10 years, other a one loss of control crash and a collision with a parked car, both in the near vicinity to these intersection.  The high level of speed control on all approaches at a four way stop intersection is highly aligned with the safe system, or Vision Zero, approach to road safety.  This speed control is also very relevant to the protection of cyclists and pedestrians using the intersection, perhaps more so than the safety or vehicle occupants. 

6.   Option 1 – Install All Stop Control (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide All Stop control at the intersection of Matlock Street and Randolph Road accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

6.5       Six responses were received of which four fully supported the proposal.  Two responses indicated that in their opinion, all stop control would be ‘confusing’ and could result in more crashes.

6.6       Staff are not concerned with any potential ambiguity over right of way.  The benefits of the slow speed environment created significantly outweigh any ambiguity of right of way.  Driver behaviour at other four way stop intersections has been observed to be positive and courteous. 

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, two signs and new posts 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.

Legal Implications

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 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 - Community 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:

·     Reduces speeds on Matlock Street, thus reducing the crash risk

·     Provides equal priority for all approaching drivers

·     Reduces the attraction of Matlock Street being a short cut from Aldwins Road

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Drivers being unclear about priorities when drivers are waiting at other approaches

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the stop control on Randolph Road only.

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:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of local residents

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Matlock St Randolph Rd site plan

64

b

Matlock St Randolph Rd location plan

65

c

Matlock St Randolph Rd site photos

66

 

 

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

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

15.    Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project - Quarterly Progress Report

Reference:

18/638940

Presenter(s):

Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager
Jenny Hughey, Principal Advisor Policy
Amy Hart, Community Development 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 receive a progress report on the Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to fulfil the Council’s resolution (CNCL/2017/00291) directing staff to bring quarterly progress reports to the Regulatory Performance Committee on this project.

1.3       The first progress report was presented to the Board and the Regulatory Performance Committee in April 2018. The Regulatory Performance Committee recommended staff to provide future reports to the Board and the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee.  This was approved by the Council in April 2018.

1.4       This report will be presented to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on 1 August 2018.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance is medium because this project is likely to be of wide public interest.  It directly impacts a small number of residents and businesses within a small geographical area, but is of high concern to these residents and businesses. This project will impact street-based sex workers operating in the area. A small number of organisations and agencies are involved in this project, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective and the New Zealand Police.

2.1.2   The community engagement mechanisms outlined in this report reflect this assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project – Quarterly Progress Report.

4.   Key Points

Background/Context

4.1       Residents around Manchester Street north and south of Bealey Avenue from Purchas Street to Kilmore Street have raised concern about the impact of street-based sex workers (sex workers), clients, minders and sightseers in their neighbourhoods. Concerns include late night noise, intimidation, vandalism and trespassing.

4.2       North of Bealey Avenue, approximately zero to two sex workers operate in any given fortnight. South of Bealey Avenue, approximately one to eight sex workers operate in winter and five to eleven for the rest of the year.

4.3       In November 2017 the Council resolved that a Street-Based Sex Work Collaborative Community Working Group (Working Group) be established with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective (NZPC), residents, the New Zealand Police and other key organisations and agencies.

4.4       Since then the Working Group has agreed on outcomes and objectives it would like to achieve, met monthly, and completed actions to meet the Council resolution and Working Group outcomes (refer to Items 6 and 7). 

4.5       Key actions since the previous progress report in April 2018 include:

4.5.1   The Board funded a CCTV camera on the Manchester Street/Aberdeen Street corner. Installation is expected by September 2018.

4.5.2   The New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective submitted an application for funding towards employment of a Street Outreach Coordinator. The Board will consider this application at its 16 July 2018 meeting.

4.5.3   A community drop-in was held to ensure residents and businesses had an avenue through which to discuss the impact of sex work on their neighbourhoods.

4.6       The next progress report will be presented in October 2018. The Working Group will continue to meet until at least February 2019, when it will evaluate the project against the intended outcomes.

4.7       In June 2018 Dame Catherine Healey, National Coordinator of NZPC, was made a Dame Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to the rights of sex workers. The Working Group acknowledged this as an individual honour and a significant step towards reducing stigma against sex workers.

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       From May 2017 the Council investigated options for a bylaw to regulate street-based sex work in response to concerns raised by residents and businesses in north of Bealey Avenue about the impact this activity was having on them. The Police advised the Council that they would not be in a position to enforce such a bylaw due to:

5.1.1   The limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s general bylaw-making powers (for example, no instant fines or powers of arrest);

5.1.2   The difficulty in gathering sufficient evidence for a prosecution; and

5.1.3   The costs involved in taking a prosecution for low-level anti-social behaviour.

5.2       Research indicates that the most effective method with which to minimise the impact of sex work and enhance the quality of life of sex workers is a non-regulatory approach where solutions are developed with all stakeholders, including residents, representatives of sex workers, the Police and local Councils.[1]

5.3       At its 2 November 2017 meeting the Council resolved to pursue a community development approach to issues raised. The full resolution is attached.

6.   Progress Report on Council Resolution

6.1       The Working Group has met monthly since December 2017 to jointly develop a project plan and undertake actions. The Working Group’s membership is attached.

6.2       Council staff presented the first quarterly progress report to the Board and the Regulatory Performance Committee in April 2018 (attached). Key milestones since the previous report are outlined below.

Council Resolution 1 Agree not to develop a bylaw at this stage that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

Action

At this stage do not develop a bylaw.

Key milestone

Action complete.

 

Council Resolution 2Agree that Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, form a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

Action

Form a Working Group.

Key milestone

Action complete.

 

Council Resolution 3Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street-based sex workers to relocate away from the current area of concern or future areas of concern.

Action

Encourage sex workers operating north of Bealey Avenue to relocate.

Key milestone

Refer to Item 6.11.

 

 

Council Resolution 4 Agree that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

Action

Appoint two Board members to the Working Group.

Key milestone

At its 3 April 2018 meeting, the Board appointed Deon Swiggs and Alexandra Davids as its representatives on the Working Group.

 

Council Resolution 5Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Regulatory Performance Committee on a quarterly basis on the progress of the collaborative community working group.

Action

Present quarterly progress reports.

 

Key milestones

1           This progress report meets the current reporting deadline of July 2018. The next reporting deadline is October 2018.

2           In February 2019 the Working Group will evaluate the project against the intended outcomes.

 

Council Resolution 6Agree that the Council will consider funding in support of initiatives presented by the collaborative community working group.

Action

Consider funding actions of the Working Group.

Key milestone

Refer to Items 6.11 and 6.16.

 

7.   Progress Report on Working Group Outcomes and Objectives

7.1       In May 2018 the Working Group discussed and agreed on the following outcomes and objectives:

7.1.1   Residents and businesses (owners and employees) in the area around Manchester Street have a good quality of life.

·     Understand the key issues associated with sex work for residents and businesses;

·     Partner with residents and businesses to jointly develop solutions;

·     Encourage sex workers operating north of Bealey Avenue to relocate; and

·     Deter anti-social behaviour displayed by sex workers, minders, clients and sightseers south of Bealey Avenue.

7.1.2   Street-based sex workers have a good quality of life, and operate in a safe and welcoming environment.

·     Understand the key issues faced by sex workers;

·     Partner with representatives of sex workers to jointly develop solutions;

·     Enhance wraparound services for sex workers;

·     Enhance community safety south of Bealey Avenue; and

·     Build public awareness to reduce stigma against sex workers.

 

7.2       Based on its outcomes and objectives, the Working Group has completed the following key milestones since the previous progress report.

 

Outcome 1 - Residents and businesses (owners and employees) in the area around Manchester Street have a good quality of life.

Objective 1.1

Understand the key issues associated with sex work for residents and businesses.

Key milestones

1           In late-April 2018 a newsletter was distributed to households and businesses in the Manchester Street area. Key points included a progress update and information about which organisations and agencies to contact with various concerns.

2           In late-April 2018 a community drop-in was held. Current issues, such as late night noise, intimidation, vandalism and trespassing, were consistent with those raised at previous drop-ins. However as only six people attended it is unclear whether these issues are experienced by the wider community. 

3           A community drop-in will be held in late-July 2018 with the aim to hear from the wider community and provide them with information on work being done by various partners of the Working Group.

Objective 1.2

Partner with residents and businesses to jointly develop solutions.

Key milestone

In May 2018 one resident from north of Bealey Avenue and one resident from south of Bealey Avenue joined the Working Group.

Objective 1.3

Encourage sex workers operating north of Bealey Avenue to relocate

Key milestone

1           Zero to two sex workers operate in this area in any given fortnight.

2           At its 16 July meeting, the Board will consider a funding application for wages for NZPC’s Street Outreach Coordinator. The Coordinator will visit the area up to seven nights per week to request that sex workers relocate.[2]

3           The Coordinator will be available to respond to resident and businesses’ concerns.

4           Community Watch started patrolling this area up to five nights per week. They report any issues to the Police for action.

5           In late-April 2018 the Council installed signage alerting drivers and pedestrians that CCTV cameras operate in this area.

6           Staff investigated traffic management options in this area, particularly the restriction of turns or access arrangements to Manchester Street (between Bealey Avenue and Purchas Street). While sex workers operate primarily during the night, drivers would be inconvenienced throughout the day and night. Traffic delays could be increased, particularly during rush hour.

Staff decided that restricting access would be a draconian step that is disproportionate to the scale of the problem, which is caused by one to two sex workers.

7           Staff investigated options for an alcohol ban area to deter anti-social behaviour. As the number of offences and incidents likely to have involved alcohol have decreased in the past two years, the Working Group did not support this ban and staff decided not to pursue it.

Note: Residents and businesses both north and south of Bealey Avenue are concerned with sex workers operating in their neighbourhoods. At this time the Working Group is undertaking actions to encourage sex workers to relocate from north of Bealey Avenue only.

Sex workers have operated south of Bealey Avenue since the mid-1990s, and many residents and businesses made an informed choice when deciding to live or work in this area. One of the priorities of the Working Group is to enhance the quality of life of residents and businesses south of Bealey Avenue.

Objective 1.4

Deter anti-social behaviour displayed by sex workers, minders, clients and sightseers south of Bealey Avenue.

Key milestone

1           Since early-June 2018 approximately one to eight sex workers have operated in this area in any given fortnight. While this is a reduction from the numbers from January to May 2018 (five to eleven), this is likely due to the start of winter.

2           At its 3 April 2018 meeting, the Board requested that staff investigate options for improving street cleaning. However the Working Group (including two residents) advised that litter is not currently a significant issue, and decided to reassess this in Spring/Summer 2018.

3           At its 16 July 2018 meeting, the Board will consider a funding application for wages for NZPC’s Street Outreach Coordinator. The Coordinator will visit the area up to seven nights per week to encourage sex workers to behave in a more neighbourly manner.

4           Community Watch started patrolling this area up to five nights per week. They report any issues to the Police for action.

Note: Reported offences and incidents of anti-social behaviour displayed by the general public (including sex workers) in this area have decreased each year since January 2015. While 2018 data is year to date, indications are that 2018 numbers are unlikely to be significantly greater than 2017 numbers.

 

Outcome 2Street-based sex workers have a good quality of life, and operate in a safe and welcoming environment.

Objective 2.1

Understand the key issues faced by sex workers.

Key milestone

In May 2018 the University of Otago – Christchurch completed research on sex work in Christchurch. The study aimed to understand what tensions sex workers and outreach workers experience with the community, what tensions the community experiences with sex workers and opinions on regulating sex work.[3]

Objective 2.2

Partner with representatives of sex workers to jointly develop solutions.

Key milestone

Action complete as representatives of sex workers have been members of the Working Group since its establishment.

Objective 2.3

Enhance wraparound services for sex workers.

Key milestone

1           The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) investigated options to assign and train dedicated staff in Work and Income Service Centres to liaise with sex workers. MSD decided to assign one staff member as a liaison (rather than one in each Service Centre) due to the low number of sex workers.

2           The Housing First programme was recently established in Christchurch with the goal to end homelessness by placing people directly into permanent housing. Tailored support services will be offered but are not a requirement to stay in the housing.

Housing First has recently joined the Working Group, and has been undertaking outreach since May 2018. To date it has not received any referrals for sex workers.

Objective 2.4

Enhance community safety south of Bealey Avenue.

Key milestones

1           At its 28 May 2018 meeting, the Board granted funding for a CCTV camera on the Manchester/Aberdeen Street corner. Installation is expected by September 2018.

This is the only corner on Manchester Street between Purchas Street and Kilmore Avenue without a CCTV camera.

2           Council staff are investigating options for improved signage advising drivers and pedestrians that CCTV cameras operate in the area.

3           Council staff investigated options for a public sharps disposal unit on Manchester Street. The Rodger Wright Centre undertakes a weekly street clean up to dispose of sharps in hot spots around Christchurch, and disposes of approximately zero to three sharps in the Manchester Street area weekly. Installation of a sharps disposal unit would lead to ongoing operational costs to secure a contractor to respond to damage or leakage at any time. Council staff decided not to pursue a unit at this stage due to the low number of sharps identified and ongoing operational costs.

Objective 2.5

Build public awareness to reduce stigma against sex workers.

Key milestones

1           In May 2018 two residents joined the Working Group.

2           At its 16 July meeting, the Board will consider a funding application for wages for NZPC’s Street Outreach Coordinator. The Coordinator will help residents and businesses understand the issues faced by sex workers.

3           In late-July 2018 a community meeting will be held, including a presentation of recent research on sex work in Christchurch (refer to Item 6.13) and an opportunity for informal conversations with key partners, including NZPC.

 

8.   Evaluation

8.1.1   The Working Group will evaluate the project against the intended outcomes in February 2019, approximately one year after the Working Group’s establishment. At that time the Working Group will consider whether to continue or recommend that the Council disestablish it.

9.   Next Steps

9.1.1   The Working Group will continue to meet monthly until at least February 2019 to jointly develop solutions.

9.1.2   A community meeting with residents and businesses north and south of Bealey Avenue will be held in late-July 2018.

9.1.3   The next quarterly progress report will be presented in October 2018.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council Resolution on Community Development Approach to Sex Work

75

b

Working Group Membership

76

c

Quarterly Progress Report - April 2018

77

 

 

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

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

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

16 July 2018

 

 

16.    Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund

Reference:

18/681111

Presenter(s):

Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to establish the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of funding of $758,109 through the 2018/19 Strengthening Communities Fund being confirmed.

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.         Allocate $100,000 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Strengthening Communities Fund to establish the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The available funding for allocation from the 2018/19 Strengthening Communities Fund (2018/19 SCF) is $758,109.  Community Boards can decide how much of this funding to allocate towards Strengthening Communities Fund applications and how much to the Discretionary Response Fund for allocation during the financial year.  

4.2       Staff have assessed 2018/19 SCF applications and made recommendations that amount to $614,700.  The Board held a workshop with Community Governance Team staff on 9 July 2018 to discuss the 2018/19 SCF applications received.  If the recommendations are adopted, the remaining balance will be $143,409.  Staff are currently recommending the Board use $100,000 to establish the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund noting that the Board may wish to allocate more than $614,700 for 2018/19 SCF applications.  Staff will be recommending that the balance of 2018/19 SCF funds after the decision meeting on 3 August 2018 be transferred into the Board’s 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund.

4.3       The criteria for the 2018/19 Discretionary Fund is attached. (Attachment A)

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund Criteria

89

 

 

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

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

17.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund - New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective

Reference:

18/570168

Presenter(s):

Amy Hart, Community Development Advisor
Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager

 

 

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 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00058253

New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective

Outreach Services for Street-Based Sex Workers

$40,200

 

1.2       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund is unconfirmed.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $40,200 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to the New Zealand Prostitutes’ Collective towards wages and a phone for a Street Outreach Coordinator.

4.   Key Points

4.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund is unconfirmed.  The balance of funding from the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund is to be confirmed by the end of July 2018.  The board is being requested, in a separate report, to establish its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund through an allocation of $100,000 from its 2018/19 Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.2       Based on the 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund criteria (Attachment A), 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

NZPC Matrix - Current

93

 

 

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

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

18.    Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - July 2018

Reference:

18/615721

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 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for July 2018.

2.         Nominate a Board representative to attend the Council’s Graffiti Office ten year anniversary function on 23 November 2018.

3.         Consider which Board members would like to be considered for hearings panels.

4.         Nominate a Board representative for the Hagley Park Reference Group.

5.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline, Board Newsletter and the Board Report to the Council’s 2 August 2018 meeting.

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Appeal of off-licence decision – 375 Ferry Road - At its meeting on 20 June 2018, the Board resolved to seek leave under section 204(2)(b) of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, for the purpose of providing community input, to appear and be heard before the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority in relation to the appeal for an application for an off-licence at 375 Ferry Road.

The Council instructed Mr Alastair Sheriff from Buddle Findlay to apply for leave on behalf of the Community Board and the District Licensing Committee.  The Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority has now advised that leave has been granted to the Council in relation to both the Community Board and the District Licensing Committee.

3.1.2   Flagpoles for Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre – the installation of two flagpoles at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre has been assigned to the Libraries Unit.  The Sumner/Redcliffs Historical Society may be able to secure funding as the society recognises this as a need for the joint use facility.  The Libraries Unit will assess the following:

·     What work if any, has been started on this project in terms of a possible location that satisfies health and safety requirements.

·     Budget requirements including initial costings for purchase and installation of a pole, flag cost, consent application (if required), and a process for maintaining and storage and use.

3.1.3   Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre Update – The Libraries Team are progressing the Nayland Street carpark issues as well as library recruitment as a result of extending the opening hours.

3.1.4   Graffiti Office Ten year Anniversary – The Council’s Graffiti Office will be celebrating its ten year anniversary on 23 November 2018 from 4pm to 6pm at the New Brighton Community Centre.  In addition to the event the function will also be a recognition of volunteers and stakeholders.  The Mayor has been invited.  The team have asked for one member of the Community Board to attend.

3.1.5   Hearings Panels – Often Council is required to set up hearings panels that respond to a variety of issues.  Staff are requesting that Board members indicate if they wish to be considered for hearings panels.

3.1.6   Hagley Park Reference Group – The Hagley Park Management plan that was adopted by Council in 2007 included a resolution to establish a Reference Group for Hagley Park to consider and make recommendations to the Council on issues directly affecting Hagley Park. 

At the Council’s Social, Community Development and Housing Committee 28 February 2018 meeting the Committee resolved:

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00015

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Receive the information in the Draft Hagley Park Reference Group Terms of Reference attached.

2.    Request that the Hagley Park Reference Group Terms of Reference be agreed with the Group and reported to the Committee for approval. 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Keown                                                                              Carried

·     Under the Hagley Park Reference Group Terms of Reference (Attachment A) lists a representative from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board be part of the membership of the group. 

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

3.1.8   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 C).

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

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

Name the Bookbots

2 July – 31 July 2018

A Strategy for the Arts

9 July – 27 August 2018

New Crossing and Parking Changes near Cathedral Grammar

9 July – 6 August 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       Other partnerships with the community and organisations

4.1.1   Neighbourhood Action Fund

In March 2018 Christchurch Civil Defence and Emergency Management (CDEM) established the Neighbourhood Action Fund. This fund offered grants of up to $5,000 to help neighbourhood and community groups get better prepared for emergencies. CDEM received 33 applications. In June 2018 seven projects were selected to receive funding including

City-Wide Projects

·    Te Runaka ki Otautahi o Kai Tahu was granted $2,500 towards organising the preparing resources for an emergency preparedness hui.

·    Age Concern Canterbury was granted $4,500 towards organising Home and Personal Safety courses to enhance emergency preparedness for older adults.

·    Amhara Support, Relief and Rehab Association was granted $4,500 towards preparing and translating emergency preparedness and response resources and organising training sessions for members of the Ethiopian community.

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Projects

·    Taylor’s Mistake Residents’ Association and Sumner Community Residents’ Association was granted $1,500 towards establishing an area specific emergency response plan for the coastal communities of Taylor’s Mistake, Boulder Bay and Godley Head Reserve.

·    Bromley Community Association was granted $3,500 towards organising and carrying out disaster response planning, community meetings and workshops to better prepare the community for a disaster event.

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Projects

·    Southshore Residents’ Association was granted $1,500 towards preparing an emergency contingency plan for the Southshore community.

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Area Projects

·    Rowley Resource Centre was granted $2,000 towards organising a community event to engage the public and raise awareness for emergency preparedness.

Next Steps

CDEM, with support from Community Governance Teams, will work with recipients to deliver these projects.

4.1.2   Roimata Food Commons (Radley Park)

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

The Roimata Commons Trust (Roimata) worked with the Council and OPUS to develop a proposed landscape plan, and submitted an application for a lease and licence area.  

Timeline

·    Late-April – Consultation closed on landscape plan and lease and licence area.

·    Early-August-Early-September – Hearing on lease and license area.

Note: A hearing needs to be held as a number of submitters have indicated they wish to be heard in support of their submission. Staff will confirm the date of the hearing as soon as possible.

·    Within one month of hearing date – Lease and licence considered by the Board.

·    Within one month of decision on lease and license area – Landscape plan considered by the Board for approval (including changes made as a result of consultation and the outcome of the lease and licence application).

4.1.3   Waltham Park

At the Board’s 30 April 2018 meeting local residents addressed the Board proposing that Waltham Park be revitalised as a community hub where people can enjoy outdoor activities and events. They requested that a Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) assessment be completed as safety issues have been reported.

At its 16 May 2018 meeting the Board decided to provide funding for a CPTED assessment, which is underway. Staff are seeking feedback from the local Police, Waltham Primary School (staff and students) and residents.

Next Steps

The CPTED report will be complete by mid-July 2018. The report will be provided to the Board and community, and staff will present the report verbally if desired.

4.1.4   Gruffalo Explorer

In 2014, The Breeze Walking Festival was the winner of the Living Streets Aotearoa Golden Foot Best Walking Project. In 2018, at the Living Streets Aotearoa Awards ceremony on 26 June at Parliament Building, Wellington the Gruffalo Explorer, a walk event within The Breeze Walking Festival, was recognised as the best national event by Honorable Julie Anne Genter, Associate Minister of Transport.  This would not have been possible without the collaboration of Canterbury Playcentre Association, Canterbury Plunket, St Margaret’s College, and the CCC Parks, Libraries and Community Recreation teams. The walking awards celebrate and recognise New Zealand achievements for walkers by acknowledging innovative new facilities, highlighting national best practise and rewarding ongoing commitment to walking and pedestrians.  The awards are for private companies and public organisations, not-for-profit groups, community organisations and individuals.

Next Steps

The Council led Breeze Walking Festival will be held from 29 September to 14 October. There will be approximately 50 walks and 25 partners contributing walk events.

4.1.5   School-led aquatic facility tours

With the support of the Community Governance Team, Dallas Wichman, Principal St Annes Primary School coordinated a group of eight, year three to year ten students from St Annes, Bamford, Te Waka Unua primary schools and Catholic Cathedral College to visit Selwyn, Caroline Bay, Rangiora and QEII. The purpose of the tours are for the students (8yrs-14yrs) to experience a range of aquatic/recreational facilities so that they can have informed discussion that draws on their knowledge and experiences.

 

Next Steps

The students will present their findings to the Community Board and, when the engagement on the concept design is open, provide feedback on the proposed design of the new Linwood/Woolston pool.

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

5.1       Ferrymead Heritage Park - Ferrymead Heritage Park continues to grow and expand its existing events, trial new activities, and plan new initiatives.

5.1.1   Steam Sundays - Held on the second Sunday of every month this is a popular event for families with young children. This year other events will be held at the same time as Steam Sundays to increase the attractions at the park e.g. the Diversity Festival in August and the Heritage Week in November.

5.1.2   Night market - Begun in February 2018 and held every month the night market has proved very popular with up to 3000 people attending. The market combines food, crafts and access to Park exhibits and activities in a combination that appeals to both tourists and the domestic market.

5.1.3   Great New Zealand Easter Egg Hunt - Run for the first time this year in conjunction with the well-established Easter Sunday event, the event proved so popular it will be run as an annual event. 

5.1.4   Christchurch Diversity Festival - This will be a new event this year spanning a whole weekend with entertainment on Friday night, an information day on Saturday (with free entry to the Park) and a fun day on Sunday.

5.1.5   Toddler Thursdays - Held three times a year in autumn, spring and summer with activities aimed specifically at pre-schoolers and their families. There is a reduced admission charge for caregivers and free admission for the under 5 year olds.

5.1.6   Breeze Walking Festival; Dogs Day Out - A chance to walk around Ferrymead Reserve and the Park with your dog, which is normally not possible. There will be information stands, activities, stalls and food vendors as part of the event. 

5.1.7   Extravaganza - This is a two-day gala held over Labour Weekend with extras added into the admission price such as face painting and double decker bus rides, with as many of the Park’s societies taking part as is possible.

5.1.8   Family Trick or Treat - Held on Halloween evening this gives families a safe and fun alternative to going door knocking in their neighbourhoods. Includes a dress-up competition, treats from the societies in the village, bouncy castles, monster mash and much more.

5.1.9   Village of the Damned - An R-16 one night terror show held on the Saturday before Halloween.  Includes a ghost train ride, various frightening activities and music, dancing eating and drinking.

5.1.10 Uproar - An R-18 annual music event that gives local up and coming musicians a chance to showcase their talents. Two stages with plenty of food, beverage and music genre options.

5.1.11 Christmas Lights Village and Polar Express - To be held in the first two weeks in December the township will be set up with different Christmas themed areas and the steam train Peveril set up as the Polar Express with Father Christmas on board.   

5.2       Men’s Activities – Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo - Waltham Community Cottage

Waltham Community Cottage reports that an increasing number of men attend the Cottage. However, there are not many activities for them to participate in, and no activities designed specifically for men.  Over the last few months, Social Work students at Ara Institute of Canterbury surveyed the needs of men in Waltham and designed activities to meet these needs. Two of the activities identified were monthly outings and movie afternoons at the Cottage, which would enhance social connectedness and reduce isolation.

The Cottage recently organised a successful outing to Sumner and Lyttelton.  The Cottage, with support from the Community Governance Team, will organise monthly outings and movie afternoons for the next year.

5.3       Sydenham Quarter

In early-2018 the Board decided to provide funding to Sydenham Quarter for an Engagement Coordinator to grow Sydenham Quarter’s membership base and promote the area. Recent and upcoming activities are below:

·    May 2018 - Monthly newsletter was initiated.

·    June 2018 - Community planting day was held for newly installed planter boxes along Colombo Street.

·    23 July 2018 – A “Pay As You Feel” dinner will be held at a local restaurant, where participants can sit down together, eat and talk. Food will be rescued that would otherwise go to landfill, and people will participate on a “pay as you feel” basis.

5.4       Events Report Back

5.4.1   The Big Chill was held on 7 July from noon to 3pm at Linwood Park to open KidsFest.

5.4.2   Winter Blast will be held on 18 July at Woolston Club for local seniors. This event provides an afternoon of entertainment and social connection. Admission is by gold coin donation or an item of non-perishable food to go towards the Linwood Avenue Community Corner Trust’s food Bank. 

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

6.1       The next update will be in August 2018.

6.2       Garden and landscape plans

6.2.1   Barnett Park Landscape Plan

The community engaged a landscape architect to develop a landscape plan for Barnett Park (Attachment D) on a pro bono basis, and requested staff advice on the process for approval and implementation. Staff advice is below.

The Council’s process for landscape plans is:

·        Staff assess the proposed landscape plan and discuss any required changes.

·        The Board considers whether to approve the proposed landscape plan for consultation.

·        Staff undertake community consultation.

·        The Board considers whether to approve the landscape plan.

·        The Council decides to allocate funding for implementation in the Long Term Plan, or the community applies for funding.

The Council recently adopted its 2018/28 Long Term Plan (LTP).  As developing a landscape plan to improve Barnett Park is not one of the projects included in the LTP, this will need to be considered for funding in the next LTP.  In the interim Parks will work with the community to investigate options to improve Barnett Park that do not require a landscape plan.

7.   Community Board Funding Update

7.1       The total allocated funding for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund, Youth Development Fund and Light Bulb Moments Fund is attached.  (Attachment E)

7.2       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $8,000.

7.3       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $4,000.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley Park Reference Group Terms of Reference

102

b

City Wide Graffiti Statistics - Suburb Street Report - June 2018

106

c

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

107

d

Proposed Barnett Park Landscape Plan

112

e

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

117

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

Megan Pearce - Team Leader Hearings and Council Support

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

PDF Creator 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

16 July 2018

 

 

19.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 



[1] Pitcher, J., R. Campbell, P. Hubbard, M. O’Neill and J. Scoular (2006). Living and Working in Areas of Street Sex Work: From conflict to coexistence. Bristol, Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Government (2008). “Report of the Prostitution Law Review Committee on the Operation of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003.”

[2] NZPC’s Street Outreach Coordinator is currently employed for 10 hours per week and works for up to 30 hours per week on a voluntary basis, but NZPC advised that this is unsustainable. The Board will consider a funding application for wages for an additional 30 hours per week.

[3] Abel, G. and Sweetman, B (2018). “Street-based Sex Work in Christchurch.” University of Otago, Christchurch.