Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 19 April 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

13 April 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@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:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

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.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4 

BA     6.       Correspondence............................................................................................................... 9

B       7.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 17

C       8.       Proposed Road Names - St Brendans Lane, Templeton............................................. 19

C       9.       Awatea Road Reserve Landscape Plan........................................................................ 23

C       10.     Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations ......................... 33

C       11.     Sonter Road - Proposed Loading Zone - Goods Vehicles Only.................................. 43

C       12.     Bradshaw Terrace - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions.......................................... 49

CA     13.     Halswell Domain - Variation to Lease and Licence for Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers................................................................................................. 57

C       14.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 - Discretionary Response Fund - Application - Mas Oyama Kyokushin Karate Dojo ..................................................... 63

C       15.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Board Projects 2016/17 - Applications..... 67

B       16.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - April 2016............................... 73

B       17.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 80

B       18.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 80 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant 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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 5 April 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Hamish Bennett, on behalf of Kauri Lodge Rest Home and Retirement Home, 148 - 154 Riccarton Road, will address the Board regarding the proposed median strip and access to Kauri Lodge from Riccarton Road.

 

4.2

Clare Mouat, local resident, will address the Board regarding Bradshaw Terrace.

 

4.3

David Hawke, Halswell Residents' Association, will address the Board regarding the Awatea Road Reserve Landscape Plan (refer agenda item 9).

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 5 April 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

5 April 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Vicki Buck declared an interest in relation to item 7.1 and withdrew from the meeting during the discussion.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00030

That the minutes of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 15 March 2016, be confirmed.

Member Bryden/Member Laloli                                                                                                                           Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

6.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Youth Development Fund - Application - Anna Taylor

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Approves to make a grant of $500 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Anna Taylor towards her competing in the 2016 Pacific Rim Gymnastics Championships in Everett, U.S.A from 8 to 10 April 2016.

 

 

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00031

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

1.         Make a grant of $500 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to
Anna Taylor towards her competing in the 2016 Pacific Rim Gymnastics Championships in Everett, U.S.A from 8 to 10 April 2016.

Member Chen/Member Bryden                                                                                                                          Carried

 

7.   Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board discussed and received the following information from members:

7.1   Riccarton Bus Lounge - further community meeting arrangements and next steps, and circulation of financial information to the attendees of the 9 February 2016 community meeting.

7.2   Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 - open for consultation from 6 April to 10 May 2016 and Board submission via its Submissions Committee.

7.3   Fulton Hogan - South Masham Outline Development Plan - next steps to be clarified regarding the Independent Hearings Panel.

7.4   Council submission opposing the CAPG quarrying application - congratulations.

7.5   District Plan Review - work is ongoing. The efforts of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board in representing and advocating for its community have been acknowledged by the Chair of the Independent Hearings Panel.

7.6   Wendy's Liquor Licence Application - a hearing by the Christchurch District Licensing Committee is to be held on 18 and 19 May 2016.

7.7   Owaka Holdings Limited - Abatement Notice - expires on 13 April 2016.

 

8.   Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders.

 

9     Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00032

Part C

That at 4.33pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 14 to 15 of the agenda, be adopted.

Member M Mora/Member Laloli                                                                                                                           Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.35pm.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 4.36pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2016

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/324928

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Garth Wilson

Picton Avenue Reserve - Playground Equipment

Ruth Dyson

Owaka Holdings Limited

Canterbury Racing and Riccarton Park Function Centre

Riccarton Racecourse Cup Day 2016 - Proposal for Temporary Alcohol Ban

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 19 April 2016 and refer the matters raised by Garth Wilson and Ruth Dyson MP to the appropriate staff for consideration and response to the Board and the correspondents.

2.         Receive the correspondence from Canterbury Racing and Riccarton Park Function Centre  and recommend that the Council direct staff to investigate a temporary liquor ban being applied in the immediate area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road, Epsom Road to Racecourse Road, Buchanans Road to Masham Road and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road for its Cup Day on Saturday 12 November 2016 from 12am to 12pm, and to report back to the Council by July 2016 through the Regulation and Consents Committee.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Garth Wilson - Picton Avenue Reserve Correspondence

10

b  

Ruth Dyson - Owaka Holdings Limited Correspondence

11

c  

Canterbury Racing and Riccarton Park Function Centre- Proposal for Temporary Alcohol Ban

12

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


 


 


 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

7.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/270000

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Ward Based Graffiti Statistics

Sarah Gardyne

Graffiti Business Coordinator - Christchurch City Council

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefing.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

8         Proposed Road Names - St Brendans Lane, Templeton

Reference:

16/227929

Contact:

Bob Pritchard

bob.pritchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 8644

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve a proposed road name for a new subdivision in Templeton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from naming requests from the subdivision developer.

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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to approve the road name below:

·        St Brendans Lane

 

4.   Background 

4.1       This is a residential subdivision of six allotments at 47 to 49 Kirk Road, Templeton, by Base Construction.

4.2       The site is the former St Brendans Roman Catholic Church.

4.3       Two names have been submitted by the applicant, in order of preference:

4.3.1   St Brendans Lane - after the church that was demolished after the earthquake.

4.3.2   Caesar Lane - after the farmer who gifted the land for the church.  

4.4       The road names are in accordance with the Council's road naming policy and any Land Information New Zealand requirements.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

St Brendans Lane

21

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Bob Pritchard

Lelanie Crous

Subdivisions Officer

Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Higgins

Peter Sparrow

Head of Resource Consents

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

9.        Awatea Road Reserve Landscape Plan

Reference:

16/206639

Contact:

Lizzy Farthing

elizabeth.farthing@ccc.govt.nz

941 8376

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the Awatea Road - New Parks Planting Landscape Plan.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix.  Staff have considered the significance of the decision to be made by the Community Board.  Their assessment is that the matter is of low significance for some of the following reasons:

·   Due to it being a local space, as opposed to a metropolitan space that users may travel to visit.

·   The low impact of the physical landscape works on park users and due to their being no change in the use of the reserve.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the Awatea Road - new parks planting.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean,  tidy, safe and functional

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the concept landscape plan (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do not approve the concept landscape plan

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Providing a pedestrian linkage between three subdivisions

·   Providing a more diverse recreational space for residents and visitors to the area

·   Creating a more diverse landscape, food source and tree corridor for native birds

·   Identifying a space for future development of an interpretation area

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An increase in maintenance costs with new tree species being introduced

 

5.   Context/Background

The proposed work lies within two local parks in the Awatea area, the 'Upper Heathcote Esplanade Reserve' and the 'Kahurangi 3 Drainage Reserve'. These reserves comprise of a combined 83 metre wide strip running from the Basin outlet through to Wigram Road.

In June 2015, the Council advised the community about the tree removal works and replacement planting on these reserves (now named the 'Upper Heathcote Esplanade Reserve').  At that time staff advised that there would be a future detailed landscape plan to be developed subject to funding. This project is now funded, so feedback was sought on the proposed landscape plan for this area.

5.1       Concept plan proposal

5.1.1   Site character

The reserve is proposed to be developed as a park, incorporating large scale specimen trees, orientated in groups and clusters to frame views and enclose areas of open grass space. This parkland style emulates existing plantings, as experienced along the Heathcote River in Spreydon Domain, Linden Grove and Centennial Park.  A variety of deciduous, exotic trees have been selected to provide interest and seasonal change. To assist in their establishment nurse crop trees will be planted amongst the specimen trees. Bark mulch is to be spread within and around blocks of trees.

Willows along the waterway, at the west end, previously removed will continue to be managed. Mature willow trees towards the Wigram Road end are proposed to be retained to provide shelter for proposed specimen trees; they will require further management to maintain their health. A group of three birch trees on the north bank of the waterway will also be retained.

5.1.2   Planting

Future riparian planting using appropriate native species is proposed to identify and highlight the presence of the upper reaches of the Heathcote River.

Coniferous, deciduous, exotic and native trees are proposed in the design to enhance amenity and habitat values along the upper reaches of the Heathcote River. Residents will experience both a combination of park like and native bush type settings as they make their journey from source to sea along the Heathcote River.

5.1.3   Pedestrian routes

Primary pedestrian routes have been identified to connect subdivisions either side of the Heathcote River. As funding becomes available, these paths will be surfaced and boardwalks constructed across the stream. Secondary tracks will be mown through the meadow grassland of the Reserve; these tracks will respond to pedestrian desire lines created by community use.


 

 

5.1.4   Interpretation site

On 15 October 1953, seven airmen were killed when two de Havilland Devon NZ1811 aircrafts collided and lost control. These aircrafts were returning to Wigram from a flypast at Harewood to mark the prize-giving ceremony at the conclusion of the London to Christchurch air race. This represented at the time, the largest loss of life incurred by the RNZAF in any single accident and this was held until the Mt. Erebus cash in 1979.   An area close to the original crash site has been identified as a suitable location for a RNZAF Interpretation site to explain this event. It is anticipated that an interpretation site to recognise the air accident would include a seating area in addition to the interpretation. This project, while supported by staff, is currently not funded.

6.   Option 1 - Approve the concept landscape plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the concept landscape plan.

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 involve a decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Consultation on the Awatea Road Reserve landscape plan was undertaken from 9 February 2016 to 29 February 2016, for a three week period.

6.5       Approximately 840 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to properties surrounding the Awatea Road Reserve, including 322 absentee landowners.  Information leaflets were also distributed to 25 key stakeholders and were made available at the Civic Offices and at local Council libraries and service centres.

6.6       The project was posted on the Council's 'Have Your Say' website to allow submitters to make electronic submissions.

6.7       A Facebook survey was also created for this project that replicated the questions in the consultation leaflet and was posted on the Council 'Facebook' page and posted on the Council 'Twitter' page.

6.8       At the close of the consultation period, 48 submissions were received with 45 (94 per cent) in support and 3 (6 per cent) not in support.

Origin of submissions

Yes I/We support

No I/We do not support

Total

Have your say/paper feedback form

16 (89%)

2 (11%)

18

Facebook survey

29 (97%)

1 (3%)

30

 

 

 

 

Total

45 (94%)

3 (6%)

48

 

6.9       The project team received feedback via Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited from the Ngāi Tūāhuriri Katiaki group, who were generally in support of the project and were supportive of the inclusion of native plants as well as exotic plantings, but would not support the inclusion of Pine Tree or Willow species.

6.10    The project team also received feedback via Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited from Te Taumutu Rūnanga who were generally not in support of the project.  This was due to the project not including extensive use of native plants (including trees) and therefore not being consistent with the Owaka cultural trail. 

6.11    The project team response in relation to the comments from the Te Taumutu Rūnanga is that the proposed design for the Awatea Reserve acknowledges the Outline Development Plan, Tangata Whenua Layer Diagram, for the Awatea area by including native riparian planting alongside the Opawaho/Heathcote River, where larger scale native species such as Hinau, Kahikatea, Matai, Pokaka and Totara can be included. As we have discovered with the Awatea Basin plantings, these native trees need to be surrounded by other plants to provide them with protection during their establishment and future growth. These species have been incorporated into the riparian planting in the Awatea Basin; whereas Kowhai and Totara that have been planted into large areas of grass space in the Basin are, in some instances, struggling. We note that small Totara plants surrounded by tussocks have been included in the planter beds alongside Rich Terrace. 

Awatea Reserve between the watercourse and Rich Terrace spans a width of 50 metres and is an ideal area for large scale trees, as their shading impact on surrounding houses will be minimal. In order to achieve more immediate tree cover, semi mature exotic trees which tend to be faster growing than the listed native trees, have been selected.  Whereas semi mature native trees were not included in the design as they are more difficult to establish in this exposed and open site. Smaller native tree plants can incorporated into the mix of nurse species, where surrounding smaller plants will help assist them with their establishment to become long term specimens.

In order to comply with CPTED (Crime Prevention through Environmental Design) principles and to provide a 'park like' experience for residents, we have decided not to create areas of dense native bush, which is where the selected native trees tend to thrive and eventually become larger scale trees.  But, by incorporating native trees into the riparian zone, they will be protected by the riparian plants and will be in a more sheltered area near the water course where they will have a greater chance of survival.

Therefore, for the immediate future, the reserve will be characterised by large scale exotic trees which have also been selected to provide a nut source and seasonal variety for residents; whilst, in the long term native trees will slowly become established in the sheltered riparian zone. It should be noted that the taller exotic trees will also provide a refuge for all bird species both exotic and native.

6.12    The main themes from this consultation were in relation to plantings, paths, requests for additional items and in relation to the interpretation site.

6.13    In relation to the plantings (14 comments), the below topics were raised:

Positive or negative comment

Type of comment

Number of comments made

Positive

Would like more trees

4

Positive

Support inclusion of new trees

2

Positive

Would like more trees for shading of the paths

2

Negative

Plant all natives

6

 

6.14    The project team response in relation to the comments about providing more shade is that there are areas of shade provided along sections of the paths, and this includes large species of trees such as Elm and Oak trees. In time, the trees planted will provide shade.  We are conscious of ensuring a balance between the seasons to ensure that paths are not too shady in winter and at risk of then becoming icy, as well as providing sufficient shade in summer. 

6.15    The project team response in relation to the comments about planting native species is that natives are generally slower growing in this location and this is evident from the Totara that has been planted at Awatea Basin.  We have attempted to cater for the wider community, and provide some colour in the planting, with the inclusion of nut species, exotics and native plantings.  The exotic species also link up with the existing planting along the Heathcote, so we have attempted to retain some consistency in the planting. 

6.16    In relation to the requests for additional items (5 comments), the below topics were raised:

Positive or negative comment

Type of comment

Number of comments made

Positive

Request for a playground

1

Positive

Request for a drinking fountain

1

Positive

Request for a public bin

1

Positive

Request for signage

1

Positive

Request for a pond

1

 

6.17    The project team response in relation to the requests for a playground is that installing a playground is outside of the scope of this project.  The play value for a landscape can include a variety of play and recreation activities, which can include formalised play areas (such as playgrounds), open space for informal sports and other open areas for natural play.  There are already a number of playgrounds in this area, with the closest one being in Colt Place in Wigram Skies.  There is also a playground at Te Kahu Park on the runway at Wigram Skies, and a tennis court, swing and carousel at a neighbourhood park between Valiant Street, Kittyhawk Avenue and Olsen Way.  A playground is also proposed across Awatea Road at a subdivision beside Carrs Basin. 

6.18    The project team response in relation to the request for a drinking fountain is that we have considered this request but the cost of installing a drinking fountain and the maintenance associated with this item is outside of the budget for this project.  We would encourage users of the reserve to bring along their own water to use for themselves or their dogs.

6.19    The project team response in relation to the request for public bins is there is an additional cost to the project for the installation of public bins and the maintenance associated with this.  The Council would prefer to encourage users of the park to take their rubbish with them and dispose of it at home.

6.20    The project team response in relation to the request for signage is that the reserve will include signage, as is standard Council process, however we did not mark this on the landscape plan.

6.21    The project team response in relation to a request for a pond is that this is outside of the budget and scope of this project.

6.22    In relation to the paths (4 comments), the below topics were raised:

Positive or negative comment

Type of comment

Number of comments made

Negative

Less paths

1

Positive

More paths

1

Positive

Support current paths

1

Positive

Sealed path

1

 

6.23    The project team response in relation to the comments about the paths is that the four paths that have been indicated are indicative, as the subdivision increases in occupation, the more popular paths will become apparent.  As funding becomes available the paths will be developed fitting with demand, this may result in only a couple of paths being sealed in the future.

6.24    In relation to the interpretation site (2 comments), the below topics were raised:

Positive or negative comment

Type of comment

Number of comments made

Positive

Strong support for the interpretation site

2

 

6.25    A consultation summary letter has been sent to all submitters, with details of the Community Board meeting, and how to request speaking rights and how submitters can view or obtain a verbatim feedback summary along with the project team responses to each submission.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.27    Cost of Implementation

The capital cost to implement the detailed landscape plan is $166, 855.

Site preparation, planting and mulching                         $59, 963

Plant supply                                                                   $10, 642

Footpaths                                                                       $47, 350

Boardwalks                                                                     $48, 900                                                                                    

6.28    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

The yearly maintenance cost resulting from the implementation of the detailed landscape plan is $3, 080 per annum.

Mow                                                                                 $140 per mow                      $560 per year

Tree maintenance                                                       $90 per tree                          $2, 520 per year

6.29    Funding source

The Awatea Road - new parks planting project is funded in financial year 2016 from 'Neighbourhood Parks - Green Assets (New)'. FY16 funding is aligned for completion of a landscape plan for the wider area and planting of specimen trees detailed on the landscape plan.

Remaining green asset work noted on the landscape plan will be completed from the programme 'Neighbourhood Parks - Green Assets (New)' as funding permits in subsequent years.

Construction of boardwalks and paths will be completed as funding permits.

The development of the air crash memorial is currently unfunded and the expectation is that this is a project to be driven by the community.

Legal Implications

6.30    There are no known legal implications with the proposed plan.

Risks and Mitigations

6.31    There are no known risks with the proposed plan.

Implementation

6.32    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board approval

6.33    Implementation timeframe - implementation of the plan will be completed as soon as practically possible

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.34    The advantages of this option include:

·   Providing a pedestrian linkage between three subdivisions

·   Providing a more diverse recreational space for residents and visitors to the area

·   Creating a more diverse landscape, food source and tree corridor for native birds

·   Identifying a space for future development of an interpretation area

6.35    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An increase in maintenance costs with new tree species being introduced

7.   Option 2 - Do not approve the concept landscape plan

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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 contrary to the community support that is evident through the consultation process for an improved landscape plan at the Awatea Road Reserve.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - Neighbourhood Parks are to be maintained to specifications to ensure parks are clean, tidy, safe and functional

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - doing nothing does not best utilise the esplanade reserve recently acquired and provide a functional use for the area

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation

Through not approving the landscape plan no funding would be required to complete any further capital works.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs

The yearly maintenance cost of not doing anything is $560 per year. This consists of four mows a year at $140 per mow.

7.8       Funding source

Through not approving the landscape plan no funding would be required to complete any further capital works.

Legal Implications

7.9       There are no known legal implications with doing nothing

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The main risk with doing nothing is that expectations will not be able to met

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No capital spend required

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The recently acquired esplanade reserve will not be developed

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Awatea Road New Parks Planting - Landscape Plan for Board Approval

32

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Elizabeth Farthing

Tara King

Junior Project Manager

Consultation Leader

Approved By

Darren Moses

David Adamson

Manager Capital Delivery Community

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

10.    Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Reference:

16/228477

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8583

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at four existing bus stop locations that have either received approval or where there was no response to the consultation by the owner or occupier of the adjacent property to the proposed bus passenger shelter within the Riccarton/Wigram ward.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report 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 an Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the staff report.

2.         Approve the installation of bus shelters at the following locations:

a.         298 Riccarton Road

b.         21 Paeroa Street (corner of Riccarton Road)

c.         322 Halswell Road

d.         17 Waimairi Road

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.4 Ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - installation of bus shelters at 298 Riccarton Road, 21 Paeroa Street (corner of Riccarton Road), 322 Halswell Road, and 17 Waimairi Road.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter, and

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increase in the number of bus passenger shelter to be maintained by the Council.

·     During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

4.4       Consultation has been undertaken with the owners or occupiers of properties adjacent to the proposed shelters.  Only the shelters where the owner or occupier of the adjacent property has provided feedback indicating approval or where there was no response received to the consultation are included within this report

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The reason why bus passenger shelters are proposed for the bus stop locations presented in this report is due to the significant number of average daily (Monday to Friday) passenger boardings (ave. pax/day), as indicated in the following list:

·   135 ave. pax/day = 298 Riccarton Road,

·   112 ave. pax/day = 21 Paeroa Street (corner of Riccarton Road),

·   70 ave. pax/day = 322 Halswell Road, and

·   227 ave. pax/day = 17 Waimari Road.

5.2       Environment Canterbury (ECan) is responsible for providing public transport services.  Christchurch City Council is responsible for providing public transport infrastructure.  The installation of these shelters is supported by ECan.

5.3       The recommendations of this report align with Council Strategies including the Council's Long Term Plan (2015-2025) to ensure users are satisfied with the quality of bus passenger shelters and help increase the number of trips made by public transport.

5.4       Council staff propose to install the bus shelters in the locations outlined in the attached bus shelter plans (refer to Attachments A, B, C and D).

5.5       Under s339 of the Local Government Act (1974) the Council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public-transport passengers or taxi passengers provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road.  The Council is required to give notice in writing to the occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and shall not proceed with the erection of the shelter until after the expiration of the time for objecting against the proposal or, in the event of an objection, until after the objection has been determined.

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for all shelters proposed occurred from Tuesday 19 January 2016 to Friday 5 February 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished no feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers.  The subsequent letter has been issued to the adjacent property owners/occupiers indicating that a request will be put to the Community Board regarding the installation approval.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 298 Riccarton Road, 21 Paeroa Street (corner of Riccarton Road), 322 Halswell Road, and 17 Waimairi Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter.  A consultation notice and feedback form was mailed to each property listed below on 19 January 2016, requesting the owners or occupiers approval or objection to the bus shelter at the bus stop outside the property they own or occupy.  The consultation process closed on 5 February 2016, no feedback has been received from all locations listed below.

·   298 and 298A Riccarton Road

·   21 Paeroa Road

·   322 Halswell Road

·   17 Waimairi Road

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $31,500 for the installation of four bus passenger shelters. 

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Costs will be met from the Passenger Transport Maintenance budget.

6.8       Funding source - The cost will be met from the Passenger Transport Infrastructure budget available for the installation of shelters.

Legal Implications

6.9       Where no objection to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to the sign-off of the installation of the proposed shelter.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Shelters are not installed, leading to poor level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

6.11    Increased street clutter:  Where street clutter has been identified through site assessments (e.g. rubbish bins located by the kerb edge (i.e. in less than ideal locations), excess number of public transport related poles, etc.), these footpath obstacles will be relocated to an appropriate location in close proximity to the shelter (e.g. the rubbish bin), and the number of poles reduced by maximising the use of the shelter (e.g. attaching the Real Time Information device 'bus finder' to the shelter).  This will help provide a de-cluttered footpath environment by the bus stop and improve the level of service for pedestrians passing the shelter and for passengers waiting for a bus.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - dependant on the contractor's workloads, but the shelters should be installed within three months of being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport, and

·   Provide a positive contribution to the overall streetscape.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increase in the number of bus passenger shelter to be maintained by the Council,

·   During the peak times of public transport usage the shelter can only provide shelter for a limited number of people, however this is the case with most bus shelters.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 298 and 298 A Riccarton Road

38

b  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 21 Paeroa Street

39

c  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 322 Halswell Road

40

d  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 17 Waimairi Road

41

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  O'Donoghue

Steffan Thomas

Steve Parry

Passenger Transport Engineer

Operations Manager

Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

David Adamson

Chris Gregory

General Manager City Services

Head of Transport

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

11.    Sonter Road - Proposed Loading Zone - Goods Vehicles Only

Reference:

16/261359

Contact:

Paul Burden

paul.burden@ccc.govt.nz

941 8938

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of two P10 Loading Zones - Goods Vehicles Only restrictions on Sonter Road immediately south of the Treffers Road intersection in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from local businesses.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve:

1.         That all existing parking restrictions on both sides of Sonter Road commencing at the Treffers Road intersection and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 54 metres be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-western side of Sonter Road commencing at the Treffers Road intersection and extending 42 metres in a south-westerly direction.

3.         Approve that a Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles Only) for a maximum period of 10 minutes be created on the north-western side of Sonter Road commencing at a point 42 metres in south-westerly direction from the Treffers Road intersection and extending 12m in a south-westerly direction.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-eastern side of Sonter Road commencing at the Treffers Road intersection and extending 34.5 metres in a south-westerly direction.

5.         Approve that a Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles Only) for a maximum period of 10 minutes be created on the south-eastern side of Sonter Road commencing at a point 34.5 metres in south-westerly direction from the Treffers Road intersection and extending 19.5 metres in a south-westerly direction.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise Operational Performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a Loading Zone - Goods Vehicles Only (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Responds favourably to requests from local businesses

·     Optimises operational performance of the available parking stock by providing space that is appropriate and useable for the adjacent business activities.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The area is currently an unusually long length of no-stopping leading up to the Treffers Road intersection. The disadvantage would be that we would be introducing minor side friction in terms of vehicle activity into this area.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Staff have received a request from a local business on Sonter Road to convert some of the existing no-stopping (broken yellow lines) leading up to the Treffers Road intersection (on both sides) into loading zones. Upon inspection it was noted that the lengths of existing no stopping are somewhat excessive and extraordinary.

5.2       The current land-uses in the area generate a significant volume of goods vehicle activity in terms of deliveries and goods being taken away. This can often occur illegally by goods vehicles parking on the existing broken yellow lines.  All existing on-street parking is occupied by staff for the duration of the working day. There is an opportunity to meet the goods loading requirements of some the adjacent businesses without reducing the available parking supply. The installation of the loading zones would still leave sufficient lengths of no-stopping leading up to the intersection so that road safety and accessibility is in no way compromised.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install P10 Loading Zone - Goods Vehicles Only (preferred)

Option Description

Install a P10 Loading Zone for Goods Vehicles Only outside the properties on both side of Sonter Road near the Treffers Road intersection as shown Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       A letter has been received in support of the proposal which is signed by the Directors of the businesses directly affected on both sides of Sonter Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       The cost of installing the required signs and markings is approximately $1,000 and will be funded from the existing markings and signs capital budget with the Transport Unit.

6.7       Ongoing maintenance will be funded from the existing road maintenance operational budget.

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - Approximately eight weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Ensures that the valuable kerbside parking resource is rationalised to match the current demands from the surrounding commercial activity.

·   No loss of existing kerbside parking supply

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor increase in side friction as a result of vehicles manoeuvring into and out of the proposed loading zones.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing no stopping (broken yellow line) restriction.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to goods loading situation.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.7       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       Not applicable.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.10    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost.

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the issue of vehicles illegally parking on the broken yellow lines at present and provides no opportunity for bona-fide goods vehicle loading.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Sonter Road - Proposed P10 Loading Zone - Goods Vehicles Only

48

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Paul Burden

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

12.    Bradshaw Terrace - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

16/293798

Contact:

Steve Dejong

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of 120 minute parking restrictions in Bradshaw Terrace in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is generated in response to a request from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board and following the receipt of a signed petition from the residents of Bradshaw Terrace.

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 Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

         3.        Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located within Bradshaw Terrace, be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Bradshaw Terrace Commencing at the intersection of Straven Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Bradshaw Terrace Commencing at the intersection of Straven Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time at the south and eastern end of Bradshaw Terrace commencing at a point 118 metres east and south of the intersection of Bradshaw Terrace and Straven Road then extending in a southerly then easterly and northerly direction around the end of Bradshaw Terrace for a total distance of 26 metres.

5.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the south side of Bradshaw Terrace commencing at a point 22 metres east of its intersection with Straven Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 75 metres.

6.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes on the north side of Bradshaw Terrace commencing at a point 111 metres east of its intersection with Straven Road and extending in an easterly direction and then around to the south for a total distance of 83 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking:

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install 120 minute Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option 1 Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It balances the need of residents providing some all day and some shorter term parking within Bradshaw Terrace.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It displaces half the current commuter parking into adjoining streets.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Bradshaw Terrace is an older residential, No Exit Street running in the main, east off Straven Road, located approximately 150 metres north of the Riccarton Road retail precinct.

5.2       Due to its close proximity to the businesses situated along Riccarton Road, Bradshaw Terrace is daily parked full of vehicles belonging to commuters who work in the area. This all day parking makes it almost impossible for residents or their visitors returning during the day to find parking in the street.

5.3       Prior to the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes staff consulted with residents of Bradshaw Terrace with regard to installing parking restrictions following a request of the Board and the same resident who has initiated this report. At that time, consultation overwhelmingly opposed the installation of parking restrictions. However, the current 2016 consultation responses from residents overwhelmingly support the installation of parking restrictions as indicated on Attachment A.

5.4       Installing staggered P120 parking restrictions as indicated on Attachment A provides some two hour day time parking for residents and their visitors and retains a similar amount of all day parking for residents or others who wish to leave a vehicle on the street.

5.5       The proposed P120 parking restrictions will operate from 8 am to 6 pm seven days a week. This permits a resident to park within the restricted P120 area at 4 pm in the afternoon of any day leave their vehicle overnight and they do not have to move it until 10 am the following day. If a resident wishes to leave their vehicle for longer periods on the street they can do so in an unrestricted zone either outside their house or directly across the road. 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install P120 Minute Parking Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install 120 Minute Parking Restrictions Bradshaw Terrace as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Following a street meeting attended by elected members, staff and residents in December 2014, staff delivered plans of the proposal to the Bradshaw Street spokespersons who went door to door gaining signatures which appear on the petition received from residents (Attachment B). Absentee property owners and residents whose names did not appear on the petition were advised of the recommended option by a letter with an enclosed plan.

6.5       Attachment B; The Petition, contains signatures representing 19 properties in support of the proposal. A following 18 registered property owners whose names did not appear on the petition were sent a letter and plan of the proposal, six of the 18 registered property owners responded to staff. Of the responders for owners indicated support for the proposal and two owners indicated opposition to the proposal.

6.6       Consultation therefore shows a clear majority of 23 Bradshaw Terrace residents and property owners support the proposal with two property owners in opposition to the proposal.

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 is approximately $1,300.

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   P120 parking restrictions as indicated on Attachment A provides some two hour day time parking for residents and their visitors and retains a similar amount of all day parking for residents or others who wish to leave a vehicle on the street.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Half of all commuters who currently park in Bradshaw Terrace will be displaced into adjoining other local streets in which demand for parking also exceeds supply.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Maintain the status quo in Bradshaw Terrace; do not install parking restrictions.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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 community requests for implementation of parking restrictions.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maintaining the status quo in Bradshaw Terrace will not displace commuter parking to adjoining Streets

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include :

·   Maintaining the status quo in Bradshaw Terrace will not address resident's concerns in a residential street.

·   This option is not in line with Council's 2003 Parking Policy which prioritizes residents parking and short stay parking above computer parking.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A :Plan Bradshaw Tce Proposed P120 Restrictions (16/300133)

54

b  

Attachment B: Petition Bradshaw Terrace request for P120 (16/300134)

55

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Steve Dejong

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

13.    Halswell Domain - Variation to Lease and Licence for Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers

Reference:

16/59172

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to:

1.1.1   Approve the plans of Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers Incorporated to install two tunnels each approximately 10 square metres in size.

1.1.2   Recommend that the Council vary both the Lease and Licence held with Canterbury Society of Model Engineers Incorporated on Halswell Domain to accurately reflect that the tunnels as depicted in Attachment A to this report are removed from the Deed of Licence and included in a Deed of Lease as the lockable tunnel structures will restrict public access which is not permitted in the Licence Agreement.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Lessees.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by officers completing and assessment of the significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Approve the plans of the Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers Incorporated to build two lockable tunnels at Halswell Domain that are 10 square metres each in size.

2.         Recommend that the Council approve variations to the current Lease and Licence to Canterbury Model and Experimental Engineers to document the installation of two 10 square metre tunnels.

3.         That the Property Consultancy Manager be granted delegated authority to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.2 Customer satisfaction with the range of recreation facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - to approve two tunnels to be built and to recommend a variation to the current Lease and Licence to include the tunnels (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - not approve two tunnels to be built and therefore no variation to the current Lease or Licence.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Providing a unique experience for visitors and members of Canterbury Society of Model Engineers.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Having two structures built on a park.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       On 4 September 2002 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board approved Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers a Deed of Lease over approximately 2375 square metres of Halswell Domain in the area previously occupied by the Halswell Pony Club.

5.2       On 2 December 2008 the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to allow the Canterbury Society of Model and Experimental Engineers at a future date build a tunnel over their tracks at Halswell Domain, it was envisioned that the tunnel would be approximately 50 square meters.  It was also resolved that they would have a Deed of Lease for the areas that the general public could not access and a Licence to Occupy over the tracks that were laid.

5.3       The Society has determined that they would prefer two smaller tunnels each being 10 square metres in size. There will be gates at either end of each tunnel that can be locked which prohibits public access. Therefore the land the tunnels are to be built on will need to be included in the leased area and removed from the licenced area. This requires a variation to both Lease and Licence.

5.4       The Society have consulted with the Certification and Exemptions Unit at Council and have been notified they will not require any consent including building exemption.

Public Advertising

5.5       The land is held as Recreation Reserve, and as such provisions 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 apply.  The Christchurch City Council as administering authority must publicly advertise the proposal and consider any objections received in writing before making the decision to vary the lease and licence over the area the Lessee is presently occupying.

5.6       The Council has publicly advertised the proposal to vary the lease and licence.  Submissions closed on Thursday 24th March 2016 and there were no objections received.

 

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve two tunnels to be built and recommend a variation to Lease and Licence (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To approve two tunnels to be built and to recommend a variation to the current Lease and Licence to include the tunnels (preferred option).

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Māori

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Members and visitors are specifically affected by this option due to the Society wanting to provide an increased experience for members and visitors.  Their views are supportive of this request.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - Staff time to prepare the report is budgeted for.

6.5.2   Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.5.3   Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.6       A variation to the Deed of Lease and Deed of Licence to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Society will be responsible for the costs to change them which is $250 plus GST.

Risks and Mitigations

6.7       The risk in granting the request is the Society may cease to operate. To mitigate the risk the lease states that the Society must remove all structures and make good the land. The lease and licence documentation will protect the Council's interests and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

Implementation

6.8       Implementation dependencies  - Approval by the Council to vary the Lease and Licence

6.9       Implementation timeframe - Completion following Council resolution

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.10    The advantages of this option include:

·   Allowing the Society to offer an unique experience to members and the public

6.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by two lockable structures.

7.   Option 2 - Not approve variation to current Lease and Licence

Option Description

7.1       Not approve two tunnels to be built and therefore no variation to current Lease and Licence.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Māori

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The Society are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to provide a unique experience for visitors and members.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - does not support Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025)

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - the LTP provides a level of service to deliver customer satisfaction with the range of recreation facilities.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - changes to the LTP that would not support customer satisfaction with a range of recreation facilities.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - No cost to Council

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable

7.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The Society having already had Council approval to build a tunnel.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Council resolution

7.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Not having built structures on a Reserve

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not allowing the Society to grow and provide the experiences they wish to the public

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

BE1691 - LA18662 - Canty Society of Model and Experimental Engineers - Final Lease Plan

62

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Lisa Barwood

Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden

Angus Smith

Andrew Rutledge

Mary Richardson

Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Manager Property Consultancy

Head of Parks

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

14.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 - Discretionary Response Fund - Application - Mas Oyama Kyokushin Karate Dojo

Reference:

16/338734

Contact:

Karla Gunby

karla.gunby@ccc.govt.nz

941 6705

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00054536

Mas Oyama Kyokushin Karate Dojo

Training Equipment

$5,190

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from Mas Oyama Kyokushin Karate Dojo.

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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $5,000 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Mas Oyama Kyokushin Karate Dojo to buy additional training and safety equipment for the club. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$130,000

$99,466

$30,534

$25,534

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Decision Matrix

65

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Karla Gunby

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

15.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Board Projects 2016/17 - Applications

Reference:

16/348858

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider whether it wishes to submit any Board projects to the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund for consideration.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as part of the 2016/17 funding round.

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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Nominate Neighbourhood Week 2016 for $4,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

2.         Nominate Community Service and Youth Awards and Community Pride Garden Awards 2017 for $8,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

3.         Nominate Culture Galore 2017 for $12,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.         Nominate Leadership Day 2017 for $5,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

5.         Nominate Off the Ground Fund for $5,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

6.         Nominate Youth Development Fund for $7,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

7.         Nominate Bulb and Other Plantings for $1,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

8.         Nominate ANZAC Day 2017 costs for $1,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

9.         Nominate Community Engagement for $2,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Attached to this report is a table that outlines potential Board projects that the Board may wish to put forward for consideration for the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund (Attachment A).  These projects were discussed with the Board at its Meeting on 15 March 2016 and have been agreed as part of the Unit work programmes. A table summarising the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board's project allocations for the past three years is also attached. (Attachment B)

4.2       Community Boards are able to submit Board projects to the Strengthening Communities Fund to deliver or support community initiatives in their local community, particularly those projects which help achieve outcomes identified in Community Board Plans.

4.3       Board projects are assessed and considered along with all other applications received for the Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.4       The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board's Strengthening Communities Fund decision meeting is scheduled for 19 July 2016.

4.5       In some instances, the Board may prefer to allocate funding for some of the Board projects from their Discretionary Response Fund, rather than the Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.6       Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to make final decisions on the Strengthening Communities Fund for their respective wards.  All funding approved is for the period of September 2016 to August 2017.

4.7       The amount available for allocation in the Riccarton/Wigram 2016/17 Strengthening Communities Fund is $51,197.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton-Wigram Community Board Strengthening Communities Funding 2016-7 Projects to Consider

70

b  

Riccarton-Wigram Community Board Bids History 2013-14 to 2015-16

72

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Marie Byrne

Karla Gunby

Peter Dow

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


 


PDF Creator


 

16.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - April 2016

Reference:

16/325119

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Community Board Related Activities

1.1.1   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 Engagement Workshop, Wednesday 20 April 2016, 5.30pm in the Hao Room, Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre, 341 Halswell Road.

1.1.2   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Confirmation) Meeting and Seminar,
Tuesday 3 May 2016, 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.1.3   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Business) Meeting, Tuesday 17 May 2016, 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.1.4   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Confirmation) Meeting and Seminar,
Tuesday 31 May 2016, 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.2       Update from Karla Gunby - Community Development Adviser

1.2.1   The Leadership Day planning has gone ahead well and has led to significant conversations in the community about leadership on the west side of town.  

1.2.2   I have assisted over 12 groups look at their range of funding options in the coming year. 

1.3       Update from Marie Byrne - Community Development Adviser

1.3.1   I have been liaising with Canterbury Jockey Club, Riccarton Park Function Centre and Strategy and Planning colleagues on a continuation of a one day temporary liquor ban for the area around Riccarton Racecourse on New Zealand Cup Day as occurred last year.  To expedite the process, correspondence requesting this will be sent to the Board.

1.3.2   Repairs are underway on the floor of the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library to enable them to host its 2016 ANZAC Day service.

1.3.3   With Strengthening Communities and Small Grants funding open for applications, I have been working with groups over their funding applications including having drop in sessions with them in the Upper Riccarton Library.

1.3.4   I have been assisting the Riccarton West Community Garden with engaging the local community over draft Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that have been drawn up.  The garden has received another year contract for the Peverel Street property with Housing New Zealand, with a two year renewal beyond that.

1.4       Update from Community Board Adviser

1.4.1   Wendco (NZ) Limited, Hornby - Application for On-Licence

At its meeting on 5 November 2015 the Board resolved:

 'To support the community in its opposition to a liquor licence application for Wendy's Hornby, 1 Chappie Place, and request the leave of the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee for a Board member to appear at the hearing on this application in support of the community'.

1.4.2   Advice has been received that the hearing before the Christchurch District Licensing Committee (CDLC) is to be held on 18 and 19 May 2016 with a reserve day of 20 May 2016.

1.4.3   When considering this matter last November, the Board confirmed that it would be supporting objections lodged from the community.

1.4.4   The Board is asked to formalise this intention and to appoint a Board member as its representative at the forthcoming CDLC hearing.

Staff Recommendation

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.    Confirm its support of the objections lodged by the community on the On-Licence Application by Wendco (NZ) Limited, Hornby.

2.    Appoint a Board member to represent the Board at the Christchurch District Licensing Committee hearing in May 2016.

2.   Consultation Calendar

2.1       Christchurch City Draft Annual Plan 2016/17 and Amended Long Term Plan 2015/25 - Consultation period 6 April to 10 May 2016.

3.   Funding Update

3.1       Attached for information, is the monthly status update of the Board's 2015/16 funding.

3.2       The Board Workshop for reviewing the applications received in relation to the Board's Strengthening Communities Fund is on 14 June 2016 and the report for decision making of fund allocations will be included in the agenda for the Board's 19 July 2016 meeting.  A date for the decision making meeting of the Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee is being arranged for August 2016.

4.   Owaka Holdings Limited - Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) Removal

4.1       For information, the attached bi-monthly update refers.

 

5.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to:

1.         Receive the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report for April 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

2015/16 Board Funding Status Update

75

b  

Staff Memorandum - MDF Removal Update from Owaka Holdings Limited

77

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Dow

Marie Byrne

Karla Gunby

Community Board Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance - Burwood/Pegasus

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

19 April 2016

 

 

17.  Elected Member 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.

 

 

 

18.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

Any member of the local authority may at any meeting of the local authority at the appointed time, put a question to the Chairperson, or through the Chairperson of the local authority to the Chairperson of any standing or special committee, or to any officer of the local authority concerning any matter relevant to the role or functions of the local authority concerning any matter that does not appear on the agenda, nor arises from any committee report or recommendation submitted to that meeting.

 

Wherever applicable, such questions shall be in writing and handed to the Chairperson prior to the commencement of the meeting at which they are to be asked.