Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 6 April 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Aaron Keown

Jo Byrne

Pauline Cotter

Ali Jones

Emma Norrish

Barbara Watson

 

 

30 March 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@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

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

16 March 2016

 

 

 

 

Role of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board

 

Chair

Mike Davidson

Membership

Aaron Keown (Deputy Chair), Jo Byrne, Emma Norrish, Barbara Watson, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies is uneven.

Meeting Cycle

Twice monthly on the first and third Wednesdays of the month.

 

The role of the community board is to:

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board Objectives

For the 2013-2016 Triennium

 

These objectives have been agreed to by the Shirley/Papanui Community Board. They are intended to guide decision-making and provide a basis for the Board's advocacy work now and in the future. These objectives will be achieved through partnerships with the community, community organisations, local businesses, government agencies and the Christchurch City Council.

 

§  Raise Board profile and strengthen communication

§  Work co-operatively with other wards and community boards

 

§  Empowering, enabling, supporting local communities

§  Giving the community its own voice and sense of involvement

 

§  Give the community an understanding of what is happening in the wards

 

§  Contribute to a sustainable, healthy city.


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 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  

B       6.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 13

C       7.       St James Park Croquet Club - Deed of Lease............................................................... 15

C       8.       Malvern Park Fitness Trail Proposal............................................................................. 21

C       9.       Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations Shirley/Papanui................................ 29

CA     10.     Hills Road Proposed Cycle Lanes, No Stopping Restrictions and Bus Stop markings 39

CA     11.     Sawyers Arms Road, Greywacke Road and Logistics Drive Traffic Controls and Parking Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 47

C       12.     Acheson Avenue Proposed P15 Parking...................................................................... 57

C       13.     Cavendish Road Proposed No Stopping Restriction.................................................. 63

C       14.     Westminster Street Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Island and No Stopping Restrictions......................................................................................................................................... 69

C       15.     Marshland Road Pedestrian Refuge Island.................................................................. 77

C       16.     Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's Discretionary Reponse Fund 2015/16 - Papanui Anzac Day Celebration Application 2016.................................... 83

B       17.     Community Board Area Update................................................................................... 87

B       18.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 95

B       19.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 95 

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 16 March 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Ashley Kate Stuart

Ms Stuart will report back to the Board regarding her participation in the New Zealand University Delegation to Harvard National Model United Nations HNMUN Conference held in Boston, USA in January 2016.

 

4.2

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Kingston Heitia-Brett

Mr Heitia-Brett will report back to the Board regarding his attendance and participation at the 2016 Junior National Touch Championships, Canterbury

 

4.3

Marshland Road Pedestrian Refuge Island

Mr Ralph Ross will speak on behalf of the Shirley Residents' Association regarding the Marshland Road pedestrian refuge island.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 16 March 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Aaron Keown

Jo Byrne

Ali Jones

Emma Norrish

Barbara Watson

 

 

14 March 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

An apology for absence was received from Pauline Cotter and an apology for late arrival was received from Ali Jones.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00014

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to accept the apologies.

Member Davidson/Member Byrne                                                                                                                     Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00015

That the minutes of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 2 March 2016 be confirmed.

Member Keown/Member Norrish                                                                                                                      Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Zion Dance Studio

Ms Sarah-Louise Faithful and Ms Loreta-Jean Tauariki reported back to the Board on their attendance at the HipHop Dance Unit World Championships held in Martinique from 1–5 December 2015.

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board thanked Ms Faithful and Ms Tauariki for their deputation.

 

4.2       Project/Funding Report - Papanui Youth Development Trust

Mr Hamish Flynn spoke on behalf of the Papanui Youth Development Trust regarding their projects and the funding the Trust had received from the Board for the 2015/16 grants year.

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board thanked Mr Flynn for his deputation and noted the excellent work of his organisation in the local and wider community.

Member Jones entered the meeting at 4.15pm

 

4.3       Project/Funding Report - St Albans Residents' Association (SARA)

Mr Peter McDonald of SARA did not attend. This presentation will be rescheduled.

 

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board receive the information in the correspondence report dated 16 March 2016.

 

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board received the information in the correspondence report dated 16 March 2016 and noted that the letter on the agenda had been referred to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board as the intersection lies within their ward boundaries.

The Board also noted that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community had referred the matter to staff.

Two further letters were tabled at the meeting as follows:

1.              Linda and Scott Bennett - Concerns about Children's Traffic Safety in Kensington Avenue

2.              Jane Ellis - Westminster Pedestrian Safety Improvement Consultation.

The Board asked for these to be forwarded to the Traffic Engineer for a response.

 

 

7.   Cranford Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Board Comment

The Board considered a report seeking its approval of the no stopping restrictions on Cranford Street at the intersection with Edgeware Road.

 

Staff Recommendations

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered the report on the proposed no stopping restrictions on Cranford Street and resolved to adopt the staff recommendations.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00016

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to adopt the staff recommendations to:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the west side of Cranford Street commencing at its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cornwall Street;

2.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the east side of Cranford Street commencing at its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 71 metres;

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Cranford Street commencing at its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 27 metres;

4.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the west side of Cranford Street commencing at a point 27 metres north of its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13.5 metres;

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Cranford Street commencing at a point 40.5 metres north of its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cornwall Street.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Cranford Street commencing at its intersection with Edgeware Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 71 metres.

Member Norrish/Member Keown                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

8.   Northern Access Bus Lanes

 

Board Comment

The Board considered a report seeking its approval of the installation of a Bus/Cycle lane on Main North Road at Chaney's and associated intersection controls.

 

Staff Recommendations

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered the report on the installation of a Bus/Cycle lane and resolved to adopt the staff recommendations.

 

Community Board Decided SPCB/2016/00017

Part A

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         That a special vehicle lane for the exclusive use of southbound buses and cycles be installed on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285 metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m. 

The division was declared carried by 5 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For:                           Member Davidson, Member Byrne, Member Jones, Member Norrish and Member Watson

Against:                 Member Keown

Member Davidson/Member Jones                                                                                                                     Carried

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00018

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved:

2.         To revoke all parking and stopping restriction on the east side of Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

3.         That the stopping of all vehicles be prohibited on the east side Main North Road starting at a point 285m metres north east of its intersection with Link Road, and extending in a south westerly direction for 515m.

4.         That a Give Way control be placed against Link Road at its intersection with Main North Road.

5.         To approve the removal of the three trees to the north of the Northern Motorway off ramp.

The division was declared carried by 5 votes to 1 vote the voting being as follows:

For:                           Member Davidson, Member Byrne, Member Jones, Member Norrish and Member Watson

Against:                 Member Keown

Member Davidson/Member Jones                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

9.   Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme - Papanui High School and Kate Elizabeth Cockerton-Holmes

 

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered applications for funding from the Board's 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme from Papanui High School and Kate Elizabeth Cockerton‑Holmes.

 

Staff Recommendations

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered the applications for funding from the Board's 2015/16 Positive Youth Development Scheme and resolved to adopt the staff recommendations.

 

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00019

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve a grant of $600 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Papanui High School towards assisting Georgia Saunders, Jazmine Tufau, Jess Brocket and Emma Fellow's attending the Secondary School Futsal Nationals.

2.         Approve a grant of $300 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Kate Elizabeth Cockerton-Holmes towards attending the New Zealand School of Dance National Scholar programme.

Member Norrish/Member Byrne                                                                                                                        Carried

 

10. Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update

 

10.1    Otukaikino Stream Field Trip

 

The Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee extended an invitation to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to join the Field Trip to view and discuss some of the recent work that has been undertaken to improve the water quality, eco systems and recreation opportunities in the area.

 

Members Watson and Norrish indicated they would attend the Otukaikino Stream field trip.

 

10.2    Elected Member Nomination to the Regional Management Water Committee

 

The Board noted the information on the activities of the Regional Water Management Committee plus the request for an elected member nomination for the impending vacancy.

 

No nominations were forthcoming from Board members for the vacancy on the Regional Management Water Committee.

 

10.3    Proposed Road Works - Heyders Road

 

The Board noted that further information is due to come to the Board regarding the proposed road works on Heyders Road.

 

 

 

 

Staff Recommendations

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board noted the information provided in the Area Update:

 

 

Community Board Decided SPCB/2016/00020

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board received the report, and resolved to approve the Board's Submission to the Proposed Christchurch Replacement Plan - Residential Medium Density Zone.

Member Norrish/Member Watson                                                                                                                     Carried

 

11. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

·                Appointment of new community organiser by the St Albans Residents' Association (SARA)

·                New options by the Christchurch City Council for the worst of the flood-affected properties in the Flockton Basin.

·                Update on the Hills Road Walkway vandalism.

·                Remediation of the placement of the solar panels powering the new 40 kilometres an hour school speed signs by Kensington Avenue school.

12. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under standing orders at this meeting.

 

Meeting concluded at 5.07pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6th DAY OF APRIL

Mike Davidson

Chairperson

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

6.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/320865

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

Judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Libraries and Information Unit

Carolyn Robertston

Head of Libraries and Information Unit

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

7.       St James Park Croquet Club - Deed of Lease

Reference:

16/183194

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve a new lease to the St James Park Croquet Club Incorporated (the "Club") at St James Park.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) 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 officers completing an assessment of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board under delegated authority from the Council, resolve to:

1.         Grant a lease over an area of approximately 2846m2 at St James Park being comprised of Certificate of Title 669/32, Lot 24 DP377, Lot 26 DP2247, Lot 3-4 DP10794, Lot 3 DP17668, Part Lot 1-2 DP3056, Part Lot 29 DP377 and Part Lot 2 DP4731 having a total area of 3.6295 hectares held as recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 for 33 years broken into three terms of 11 years each with three-yearly rent reviews.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to negotiate, conclude and administer all further terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

·     Level of Service: 7.0.3 Support community based organisations and networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport in Christchurch

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Grant a New Lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Decline Request to Grant New Lease

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Continued provision of facilities for the playing of sport, namely croquet.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by a sports club.

 

5.   Context/Background

Request for Lease

5.1       St James Park Croquet Club was established in November 1935.

5.2       A lease was granted to the Club in October 1997 which is due to expire on 31 March 2016 with no further rights of renewal.

5.3       The leased area is depicted as Area A on the attached lease plan (refer Attachment A).

5.4       The annual rent is $648.03 inclusive of GST and is calculated using the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy, reviewed three-yearly.

5.5       The Club membership is comprised of 59 members with a steady rise in membership since the earthquakes.

5.6       The Club has provided audited accounts and officers are satisfied that the Club is in a good financial position.

The Land

5.7       The leased area is approximately 2846m2 at the St James Park being comprised of Certificate of Title 669/32, Lot 24 DP377, Lot 26 DP2247, Lot 3-4 DP10794, Lot 3 DP17668, Part Lot 1-2 DP3056, Part Lot 29 DP377 and Part Lot 2 DP4731 having a total area of 3.6295 hectares being a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Delegations

5.8       The Council has delegated to Community Boards the authority to grant new leases on reserves pursuant to section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.  The proposed lease will be granted under the provisions of section 54(1) (b) (c) of that Act.

Parks Management Plan

5.9       The current Recreation Three Zone Reserves Management Plan approved by the Christchurch City  Council in February 1987, provides for the activities of the :

·   Section 13 (d) 1. Leases and Licences - The whole or part of a reserve for outdoor recreation where the development and maintenance costs for the area are met by the organisation

Public Advertising

5.10    There is no requirement to publicly advertise the granting of a new lease in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 as the activity is in conformity with and contemplated by the approved management plan for the reserve.

Minister of Conservation Consent

5.11    The prior consent of the Minister of Conservation shall not be required before the administering body grants a lease or licence under subsection 54(1), where:

(a)  The administering body of a recreation reserve is a territorial authority or a regional council; and

(b)  The reserve is vested in that territorial authority or regional council; and

(c)   A management plan for that reserve has been approved in accordance with section 41; and

(d)  The lease or licence is in conformity with and contemplated by that management plan.

6.   Option 1 - Grant a New Lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To grant a new lease for a period of 33 years, broken into three terms of 11 years with rights of renewal at the end of the first two terms subject to there being no greater demand for some other sport or recreational activity that will provide a greater public benefit over that area of land identified on the attached plan (Attachment A).

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 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       Club members and their invited guests are specifically affected by this option due to the continued need to provide facilities from which to participate in the recreational activity.  Their views support this request.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - There are not costs to the Council other than staff time which is budgeted for.  An annual rental is being charged in accordance with the Council's charging policy for sports club ground leases.

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable

6.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

6.9       A Deed of Lease will be prepared to document the lease arrangement.  The Club will be responsible for the costs of preparing the new deed which is $250 plus GST.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The risk in granting a lease for a period of up to 33 years is that the Club may cease to operate.  To mitigate the risk, the lease will consist of three terms of 11 years which provides an opportunity for the Club to determine any changes in the level of service they provide to their members.  The lease documentation will protect the Council's interests on the reserve and provide measurers for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - Resolution by the Community Board

6.12    Implementation timeframe - completion of lease documentation after resolution by Community Board

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Continued provision of facilities for the playing of sport, namely croquet.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by a sports club.

7.   Option 2 - Decline Request to Grant New Lease

Option Description

7.1       Decline the request to grant a new lease and request St James Park Croquet Club Incorporated to remove their buildings and improvements from the land and make good.

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 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       Members of the Club are specifically affected by this option due to continued need to provide facilities from which to participate in the recreational activity.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with the 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 Long Term Plan provides a level of service to support community based organisations and networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - changes to the Long Term Plan that would not support providing spaces for residents to participate in outdoor recreation.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not quantified, however costs would include staff time and resources to facilitate the removal or on-sale of the buildings and reinstating the croquet greens to parks reserve.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - If the buildings were not removed and the croquet greens not filled in on the reserve, the Council could be forced to cover the costs for removal of the buildings and croquet greens, or ongoing maintenance if the buildings and greens were left in situ.

7.8       Funding source - there is no budget provided for the Council to facilitate this option.

Legal Implications

7.9       The current lease provides the guidelines to deal with the termination and non-renewal of the lease.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    In the event of the lease terminating and no new lease being granted, the Council as Lessor will ensure that any other incoming Lessee will pay to the outgoing Lessee the value (as determined by the Lessor) of all buildings and other improvements to the Lessee.

7.11    The Council may require the Lessee to remove the improvements immediately following the termination of the lease.  If the club does not have the financial resources to remove the improvements, the Council could find itself liable to remove the improvements from the reserve.  One way to remove that risk is to approve the granting of a new lease.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantage of this option include:

·   Opening up the greenspace area of the reserve by removing buildings and croquet greens.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displacing an established recreational activity from a park with purpose built infrastructure.

·   Financial implications to the Club in removing their building and establishing clubrooms elsewhere.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Lease Plan

20

 

 

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

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

8.       Malvern Park Fitness Trail Proposal

Reference:

15/1535580

Contact:

Megan Carpenter

Megan.carpenter@ccc.govt.nz

941 6761

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the landscape concept plan for a fitness trail at Malvern Park, St Albans.

Origin of Report

1.2       A landscape concept plan was presented to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board at a seminar on Wednesday 18 November prior to heading out for consultation. This report is staff generated to present a landscape concept plan for a fitness trail at Malvern Park prepared in consultation with the community and affected stakeholders.

2.   Significance.

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the criteria noted in the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. The decision to be made is of a low cost to ratepayers as the Council has no existing funding and the project funds will be raised by the community.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approve a fitness trail at Malvern Park (as community funding allows).

2.         Approve the landscape concept plan for a fitness trail at Malvern Park.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

Level of Service: 6.1.3 Overall customer satisfaction with sports parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

Option 1 - Approve the Landscape Concept plan for a fitness trail at Malvern Park (preferred option)

Option 2 - Do nothing / status quo

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

Installation of a fitness trail that provides the opportunity for local residents to be physically active contributing to their health and wellbeing.

Provides an opportunity for the community to work together to fundraise for equipment.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

Council have no funding for this project, therefore Council need to be clear around the expectation of the community fundraising for this proposal.

Unknown construction timeframes due to community fundraising.

4.4       Community Feedback

4.4.1   Community consultation on the Malvern Park Fitness Trail Proposal was undertaken from Thursday 28 January to Thursday 18 February 2016.

4.4.2   A total of 140 leaflets were hand delivered to Malvern Street and sections of Rutland Street, Roosevelt Avenue, Innes Road and Cranford Street. The leaflet was also sent to 44 key stakeholders and 48 absentee owners.

4.4.3   During the course of the engagement, Council received 22 submissions. 18 respondents were in support of the fitness trail, three respondents did not support the proposed fitness trail and one did not state their preference. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Malvern Park is located in the suburb of St Albans adjacent to Rugby Park and is bordered by Innes Road, Roosevelt Street and Malvern Street. It’s a Sports Park with an area of 27,028m2.

5.2       A community survey conducted by the St Albans Residents Association (SARA) in 2012, identified demand for outdoor fitness equipment and an all-weather running/walking trail around Malvern Park

5.3       The community approached the Christchurch City Council and it was agreed that the concept had merit. However the Council have no funding available through their Long Term Plan.

5.4       SARA representatives presented to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board a proposal for an Exercise Trail at Malvern Park on Wednesday 19 November 2014.

5.5       The Community Board requested staff to present a feasibility study for a proposed fitness trail at Malvern Park

5.6       Staff presented a feasibility study to the Board on 17 June 2015. The Board agreed that staff proceed to a concept plan for presentation back to the Board prior to consultation.

5.6.1   The Board asked that staff engage with Canterbury Rugby with regards to a potential co-designed, co-funded model and continue to work closely with SARA.

5.6.2   Staff consulted with Canterbury Rugby and they thought the equipment proposed would be suitable for the general public but not for high performance athletes. There was also no interest if a co-funded model. They suggested that SARA make an application to the Mainland Foundation.

5.7       A landscape concept plan was presented to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board at a seminar on Wednesday 18 November prior to heading out for consultation.

5.7.1   A perimeter path was considered during the planning stages of this project, however due to construction costs and ongoing maintenance it was removed from the project following the Board seminar.

6.   Option 1 - Approve the landscape concept plan for a fitness trail at Malvern Park.

Option Description

6.1       The Malvern Park Fitness Trail Landscape Concept Plan, refer to Attachment A has been prepared in consultation with the Community and affected stakeholders. The fitness equipment images are indicative only and represent type of activity/equipment. Changes to activity/equipment may occur when selecting a suitable equipment supplier once funds have been raised. Decisions will be made in conjunction with SARA.

6.2       This options involves the installation of fitness equipment in three locations.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Staff attended a Kiwiable Recreation Network Meeting on Thursday 10 December 2016. Feedback was positive around the inclusion of equipment for those with disabilities. It was suggested that access into the park, mobility car parking and suitable space around equipment needs to be considered.

6.6       Submissions were received from Thursday 28 January to Thursday 18 February 2016, with 22 responses received.

6.6.1   18 respondents were in support of the fitness trail. Their feedback included:

·   I support a public space to encourage free exercise.

·   We encourage the installation of pieces that can be multi-purpose and used by a wide range of people of varying abilities and ages.

·   I think the fact that there is wheel chair accessible equipment is great! Fitness is awesome.

·   Concerns around safety at night and potential vandalism.

·   Concerns about access for disability users.

·   It will be well used and provide a range of individual and community benefits.

·   This would be a great asset to our community.

6.6.2   Three respondents did not support the proposed fitness trail and included the following feedback

·   The introduction of this equipment will attract the undesirable.

·   Part of the beauty of the park is its simplicity. The equipment will diminish from the general aesthetics of the park.

·   It is just another target for graffiti and misuse.

Project Team Response: Outdoor fitness equipment has proven to be successful in other parks with minimal vandalism if robust equipment is selected. Care has been taken to place the fitness equipment so that it has a minimal impact on the park.

6.6.3   One respondent who did not state their preference included the following feedback.

·    There could be more exercise uptake from something which “gives back” to both the user and community in the form of energy/re-charging your phone. Imagine using your phone to watch TV while you exercise outside, but then you run out of battery. This could be a great incentive for using the machines.  It is novel technology and would help promote the gym while collecting energy and hopefully users.

Project team response: Brands and types of equipment can be considered depending on cost/budget through discussions with SARA when funds have been raised for the equipment.

6.6.4   During the detailed design process further investigation will be required around the equipment that is suitable for those with disabilities. This may involve further consultation with the Kiwiable Recreation Network and CCC's Disability Advisory Group to ensure the equipment is accessible and inclusive. This process will also ensure that the journey to and from the equipment is considered.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.7.1   Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

6.7.2   Public Open Space Strategy 2010

6.7.3   Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Financial Implications

6.7.4   Cost of Implementation - There is no capital funding allocated in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan to implement the fitness trail for this park.

6.7.5   Price estimates for the project were included in a memo to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board on 17 June 2015. There has been an increase in the price estimate following this meeting as some changes we made to the concept plan prior to community consultation.  The total Malvern Park Fitness Trail estimate is $55,813.45. This price estimate is based on March 2016 rates with no allowance for inflation or price increases.

6.7.6   Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - The Urban Parks Team have confirmed that they are will take on the maintenance costs for this proposal. The total maintenance is $368.40 per annum. The Annual Capital Renewal funding required is $960.23 per annum

6.7.7   Funding source - The Community are proposing to fundraise for the fitness trail to be implemented at Malvern Park.

Legal Implications

6.8       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       This options has low risk for delivery, however the project is dependent on Community fundraising. Therefore is a risk to the project if the budget required is not fundraised.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies - Council have no funding for this project, therefore it is dependent on the local community spearheaded by SARA to fundraise.

6.11    Implementation timeframe - The implementation of this project is unknown due to timeframes associated with community fundraising.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Installation of a fitness trail that provides the opportunity for local residents to be physically active contributing to their health and wellbeing

·   Provides an opportunity for the community to work together to fundraise for equipment.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council have no funding for this project, therefore Council need to be clear around the expectation of the community fundraising for this proposal.

·   Unknown construction timeframes due to community fundraising.

7.   Option 2 - Do nothing / status quo

Option Description

7.1       A fitness trail will not be installed at Malvern Park and the park will remain as it is currently.

Significance

The level of significance of low 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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Community views were not sought on this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       Nil

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.8       Funding source - Nil

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Nil

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    This is not the preferred option as demand from the community exists for outdoor fitness equipment at Malvern Park. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Malvern Park Fitness Trail Concept Plan for Board Approval March 2016

27

 

 

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

Megan Carpenter

Recreation Planner - Greenspace

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge

Jason Rivett

Mary Richardson

Head of Parks

Finance Business Partner

General Manager Customer & Community

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

9.        Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations Shirley/Papanui

Reference:

16/259991

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at five 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 Shirley / Papanui ward.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  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.

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 Councils Significance an Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the staff report.

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

a.         482A Innes Road,

b.         578 Barbadoes Street,

c.         25 Briggs Road,

d.         183 Harewood Road, and

e.         8 Richill Street (Belfast Medical Centre).

 

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 482A Innes Road, 578 Barbadoes Street, 25 Briggs Road, 183 Harewood Road and 8 Richill Street (Belfast Medical Centre).

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       Bus passenger shelters are proposed for four of the five bus stop locations presented in this report due to the average daily (Monday to Friday) passenger boardings (ave. pax/day), as indicated in the following list:

·   92 ave. pax/day = 482A Innes Road,

·   33 ave. pax/day = 578 Barbadoes Street,

·   64 ave. pax/day = 25 Briggs Road, and

·   90 ave. pax/day = 183 Harewood Road.

5.2       The proposed bus passenger shelter at 8 Richill Street (Belfast Medical Centre) will provide shelter for the approved bus stop outside numbers 8 and 10 Richill Street, to meet ECan's requirements for the new Waimakariri Shuttle service where it will link to the city-bound Blue Line.  This will result in a transfer location for passengers swapping between bus services. This is consistent with ECan's objectives to provide people in Greater Christchurch with the choice of using public transport services to access major employment, medical, commercial and leisure facilities, and that public transport services are supported by appropriate infrastructure, such as providing sufficient space and shelter for waiting passengers.

5.3       Environment Canterbury (ECan) are 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.

5.4       Council staff proposes to install the bus shelters in the locations outlined in the attached bus shelter plans (refer to Attachments A to E).  This does not impact on the bus stop locations.

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       Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road, as a result of the proposed shelter installations.

5.7       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for all shelters proposed, except for Richill Street, occurred from Tuesday 19 January 2016 to Friday 5 February 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished the owners/occupiers of 183 Harewood Road returned the feedback form indicating approval.  The owners/occupiers of 482A Innes Road and 578 Barbadoes Street returned the feedback form indicating approval, but on the grounds of certain requests which Council staff have acknowledged and have incorporated as part of the shelter proposal. 

5.8       No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers of 25 Briggs Road. The owner of this property is Christchurch City Council, the site and facilities within the site are used by the Scouts (Aoraki Regional Rovers).

5.9       The consultation period for Richill Street (Belfast Medical Centre) occurred from Thursday 15 October to Friday 28 November 2015.  The occupier of the Medical Centre has provided approval, but on the grounds of certain requests with Council staff have acknowledged and incorporated as part of the shelter proposal.

5.10    A subsequent letter has been issued to all of 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 482A Innes Road, 578 Barbadoes Street, 25 Briggs Road, 183 Harewood Road and 8 Richill Street.  Except for 8 Richill Street, all of the remaining shelters are adjacent to an existing bus stop.  The bus stop location at 8 Richill Street was resolved in December 2015.

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.

·   482A Innes Road,

·   578 Barbadoes Street,

·   25 Briggs Road,

·   183 Harewood Road, and

·   8 Richill Street (Belfast Medical Centre).

6.5       As indicated in Section 5.7 to Section 5.9 the owners/occupiers of 183 Harewood Road did not return any feeback.  The owner/occupiers of all remaining properties adjacent to existing/resolved bus stops indicated their approval, but on the grounds of certain requests which Council staff have acknowledged and have incorporated as part of the shelter proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $42,500 for the installation of five bus passenger shelters. 

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

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

Legal Implications

6.10    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

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

6.12    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

6.13    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Shirley / Papanui Community Board.

6.14    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

6.15    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.

6.16    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: 482A Innes Road

34

b  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 578 Barbadoes Street

35

c  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 25 Briggs Road

36

d  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 183 Harewood Road

37

e  

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan: 8 Richill Street

38

 

 

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

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Passenger Transport Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

10.    Hills Road Proposed Cycle Lanes, No Stopping Restrictions and Bus Stop markings

Reference:

15/1474200

Contact:

Penny Gray

N/A

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to:

1.1.1   Recommend to the Council that is approves the cycle lanes on Hills Road in accordance with Attachment A.

1.1.2   Approves the no stopping restrictions and bus stop markings on Hills Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and resulted from a study of cycle crashes in the Shirley/Papanui Ward.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board, recommends to the Council that it:

1.         Revoke any special vehicle lane provisions for the use of north bound cyclists only, on the western side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Warrington Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Akaroa Street;

2.         Revoke any special vehicle lane provisions for the use of south bound cyclists only, on the eastern side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Acheson Avenue and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Shirley Road;

3.         Approve that the special vehicle lanes for the use of north bound cyclists only be installed on the west side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Warrington Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Akaroa Street;

4.         Approve that the special vehicle lanes for the use of south bound cyclists only be installed on the east side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Akaroa Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Shirley Road.

 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

5.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the west side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Warrington Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Akaroa Street.

6.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the east side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Acheson Avenue and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Shirley Road;

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Warrington Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Aylesford Street;

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Spurway Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

9.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the west side of Hills Road commencing at a point 10 metres north of its intersection with Spurway Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hills Road commencing at a point 24 metres north of its intersection with Spurway Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

11.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hills Road commencing at a point 260 metres north of its intersection with Spurway Place and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

12.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Whitehall Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Akaroa Street.

13.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 56.5 metres.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hills Road commencing at its intersection with Ailsa Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.5 metres.

15.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the east side of Hills Road commencing at a point 12.5 metres north of its intersection with Ailsa Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.1.2   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.10 Improve the accessibility of bus stops via a targeted review and improvement programme

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install Cycle Lanes, No Stopping Restrictions and Bus Stop markings (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by providing a dedicated lane for cyclists;

·     Highlights the presence of cyclists to motorists by providing cycle lanes and green surfacing;

·     Encourages cycling by providing specific cycle facilities;

·     Increases visibility of public transport on the roading network;

·     Allows buses to enter and exit bus stops safely and efficiently;

·     Removes the ambiguity around the parking restrictions at a bus stop.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of 2 time limited parking spaces outside 219 Hills Road

4.4       Community Feedback

4.4.1   Community consultation on the Hills Road (Shirley Road to Akaroa Street), Shirley, Proposed Safety Improvements was undertaken from Monday 1 February to Monday 15 February 2016.

4.4.2   A total of 240 leaflets were hand delivered to properties along Hills Road (between Warden and Dawe Streets), Friel Lane, and a section of Shirley Road. The leaflet was also sent to 51 key stakeholders and 123 absentee owners. 

4.4.3   During the course of the engagement, Council received 19 submissions. 17 respondents were in support of the safety improvements, one respondent did not support the proposed safety improvements and one did not state their preference.  

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Staff investigated cycle crashes in the Shirley/Papanui ward.  On Hills Road, between Shirley Road and Akaroa Street, there have been a total of 4 crashes involving cyclists in the past 5 years (2011-2015).  Two of these crashes were fatal.

5.2       There are existing cycle lanes on Hills Road at the intersection of Shirley Road and also through the intersection with Akaroa Street.  There are also cycle lanes on Shirley Road, Warrington Street and cycle and bus lanes on Hills Road between Shirley Road and Whitmore Street.

5.3       Hills Road is a 15 metre wide collector road.  There are existing edgeline markings and centre lines.

5.4       There are existing bus stops along Hills Road which are marked by a bus stop sign.  This does not meet our Council standards for bus stops.

Proposal

5.5       It is proposed to install cycle lanes on Hills Road between Shirley Road and Akaroa Street.  The cycle lanes can be accommodated within the existing carriageway width with the loss of only 2 time limited parking spaces.

5.6       The cycle lanes are proposed to be 1.8 metres wide with the traffic lanes at 3.7 metres.

5.7       It is proposed to install green surfacing in the form of green cycle boxes and green lines across each intersection.  This will highlight the presence of cyclists to motorists entering Hills Road from the side roads.

5.8       Bus Stops are proposed to be marked at the existing bus stops outside 239 Hills Road and 252 Hills Road.  This will clearly indicate the area reserved for the bus.  Some parking will be removed as a result of these bus stop markings.

6.   Option 1 - Install Cycle Lanes, No Stopping Restrictions and Bus Stop Markings (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install cycle lanes on Hills Road between Shirley Road and Akaroa Street and associated no stopping restrictions and bus stop markings as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

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

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Submissions were received from Monday 1 February to Monday 15 February 2016, with 19 responses received.

6.4.1   17 respondents were in support of the safety improvements. Their feedback included:

·   Cycle lanes will be a very good improvement.

·   Great idea.

·   There should be cycle ways along all the more major city roads.

6.4.2   One respondent did not support the proposed safety improvements and included the following feedback:

·   Concerns that cyclists should use the footpaths instead of the road to cycle.

Project team response:

·   There is a safety issue for cyclists using footpaths with vehicles exiting their properties. On road facilities are part of the tool kit in the Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines.

6.4.3   One respondent who did not state their preference included the following feedback:

·   Concerns about the design not including a median strip where pedestrians could cross.

Project team response:

·   This scheme is focussed on cycle safety, however your request for pedestrian crossing refuges has been noted and will be added to our database for investigation.  Your request to increase the width of the cycle lane from 1.8 metres to 2 metres has been considered.  The Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines allow for a minimum cycle lane of 1.8 metres.  We have decided to keep the cycle lanes at 1.8 metres to allow for future optimisation of the corridor and pedestrian facilities.

·   3 metres is the minimum width of traffic lanes for minor arterial road.

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 - $89,000 (including design, supervision and construction of the scheme)

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

6.5.3   Funding source - Blackspot Remedial Works from Capital Expenditure funding

Legal Implications

6.6       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.

6.7       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 islands.

6.8       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

6.9       Not applicable

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board and Council approval

6.11    Implementation timeframe - Construction is programmed to be completed by the end of the 2015/16 financial year

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by providing a dedicated lane for cyclists;

·   Highlights the presence of cyclists to motorists by providing cycle lanes and green surfacing;

·   Encourages cycling by providing specific cycle facilities;

·   Increases visibility of public transport on the roading network;

·   Allows buses to enter and exit the stop safely and efficiently;

·   Removes the ambiguity around the parking restrictions at a bus stop.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of 2 time limited parking spaces outside 219 Hills Road

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Hills Road will remain as it is.

Significance

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

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       No feedback supported this option and this option would not deliver the required safety improvements.

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 - 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:

·   Retaining 2 time limited car parking spaces

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the cycle crash history for Hills Road

·   It does not address the unmarked bus stops

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Plan tp345401 - For Board Approval - Hills Road Improvements Cycle lanes - shirley akaroa aylesford St Ailsa St

46

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

Penny Gray

Ryan Rolston

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

11.    Sawyers Arms Road, Greywacke Road and Logistics Drive Traffic Controls and Parking Restrictions

Reference:

16/140139

Contact:

Penny Gray

N/A

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to:

1.1.1   Approve the no stopping restrictions on Sawyers Arms Road and Greywacke Road and the Give Way control on Greywacke Road, as shown on Attachment A.

1.1.2   Recommend to the Council that it approves the shared path on Greywacke Road as shown on Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is being provided in response from a request from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to formalise the road marking on the extension to Greywacke Road and its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and Logistics Drive. The road works are being constructed by NZTA as part of the Western Corridor project.

1.3       A duplicate report is being presented to the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board to approve the no stopping on Sawyers Arms Road and Logistics Drive.

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 project and 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board, recommends to the Council that it:

1.         Approve that the a shared path for the use of cyclists and pedestrians be installed on the south side of Greywacke Road commencing at its intersection with Johns Road and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

2.         Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Greywacke Road at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road;

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Greywacke Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres;

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Greywacke Road commencing at its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres;

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Greywacke Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 60 metres;

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Greywacke Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 60 metres;

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install traffic and parking controls on Sawyers Arms Road, Greywacke Road and Logistics Drive (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 the risk of a crash by improving the sightlines at the intersection of Greywacke Road, Logistics Drive and Sawyers Arms Road;

·     Reduces the risk of a cycle crash by providing a cycle facility;

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Western Corridor (SH1) connects the north and south Canterbury with Christchurch International Airport.  It runs between Belfast in the north and the large industrial area at Hornby in the south.

5.2       The Greywacke Road extension and associated works is part of the Western Corridor localised package of improvements jointly agreed between NZTA, Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch International Airport Limited.

5.3       Three Western Corridor projects have been completed and three are being built:

·   Johns Road (from The Groynes to Sawyers Arms Road) will be completed in 2017

·   Western Belfast Bypass is underway and will be finished in 2018

·   Russley Road from Harewood Road to Avonhead Park (including the southern airport access) will be finished in 2018.

5.4       NZTA have recently constructed the Greywacke Road extension and installed the line marking and shared path as part of their Western Corridor works.  Greywacke Road is a Council controlled road and as such the line marking needs to be resolved by the community board.

5.5       Greywacke Road now runs from SH1 to the intersection of Sawyers Arms Road and Logistics Drive, providing a local access connection to a number of industrial sites along these roads.

5.6       Sawyers Arms Road, at Logistics Drive and Greywacke Road intersection, is the boundary of the Shirley/Papanui community board and the Fendalton Waimairi community board.  This report, with different resolutions, is being presented separately at each community board meeting for the approval of the traffic controls in their ward.

6.   Option 1 - Install Parking and Traffic Controls on Sawyers Arms Road, Greywacke Road and Logistics Drive (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install a shared path on Greywacke Road, no stopping restrictions at the intersection of Greywacke Road, Sawyers Arms Road and Logistics Drive and install a Give Way control on Greywacke Road, as shown in Attachments A and B.

6.2       Logistics Drive is in the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board ward.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community and stakeholder consultation was undertaken by NZTA as part of the Western Corridor scheme.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $0 to Christchurch City Council (NZTA installing as part of their Western Corridor Project)

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

6.9       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

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

6.11    The 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.

6.12    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

6.13    Not applicable

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval to have legal effect.   

6.15    Implementation timeframe - has been constructed

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving the sightlines at the intersection of Greywacke Road, Logistics Drive and Sawyers Arms Road;

·   Reduces the risk of a crash cycle crash by providing a cycle facility;

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not resolve relevant traffic controls associated with this project

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       See section 6.4.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent 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       Traffic controls would be unenforceable and may be subject to legal challenge. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Potential legal challenge of traffic controls. 

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

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   See 7.9 and 7.10 above

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board and Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board - Greywacke Road Sawyers Arms Road Logistics Drive Intersection Line Marking - NZTA plan

52

b  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Greywacke Road Shared Path Plan - SP2 Greywacke Extension - NZTA drawing

53

 

 

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

Penny Gray

Ryan Rolston

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

12.    Acheson Avenue Proposed P15 Parking

Reference:

16/211915

Contact:

Penny Gray

Enter email address

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the installation of P15 parking restrictions on Acheson Avenue outside of a local dairy as shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from the owner of the local dairy.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Revoke any time limited parking on the northern side of Acheson Avenue commencing at a point 12 metres west of its intersection with Emmett Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres;

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 15 minutes on the northern side of Acheson Avenue commencing at a point 12 metres west of its intersection with Emmett Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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 P15 Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Creates a more usable mixture of parking in the area.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Installation costs.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There is an existing unrestricted angle parking area in front of the shops on Acheson Avenue.

5.2       A number of shops in this area are not currently trading however the dairy near the intersection of Emmett Street is open 7 days a week from 7.30am to 7.30pm.

5.3       There are major road works on Emmett Street with a number of road closures along this street.  This has limited the amount of on-street parking and vehicular access for residents in the area.  These road works have been on-going for a number of months and are expected to last many more months.

5.4       The owner of the dairy has requested time limited parking outside of their shop for their customers to use.  They report that often cars are parked out the front all day.

5.5       It is proposed to install P15 parking for the 4 car parks in front of the dairy.   This will create a mixture of time limited parking and unrestricted parking in this angle parking area.

5.6       No consultation has been undertaken as part of this scheme.  The dairy owner requested the parking and the shops on either side of the dairy are not trading.

 

6.   Option 1 - Install P15 Parking (preferred)

Option Description

Install P15 parking on the northern side of Acheson Avenue in the angle parking area, as shown on 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 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 dairy owner is the only shop trading at this end of the angle parking area and requested the P15 time limited parking.

6.5       No other consultation was undertaken as there are no other directly affected parties.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $400.

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.11    The 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.

6.12    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

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Creates a more usable mixture of parking in the area.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Installation costs.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing unrestricted angle arking.

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 the parking.

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:

·   No cost.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the parking concerns in the area

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Proposed P15 Parking Acheson Avenue - Plan tg129351

61

 

 

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

Penny Gray

Ryan Rolston

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Senior Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

13.    Cavendish Road Proposed No Stopping Restriction

Reference:

16/245012

Contact:

Penny Gray

Not applicable

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the 'No Stopping' restrictions on Cavendish Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is in response to request from a local road user and the Police.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the east side of Cavendish Road commencing at its intersection with Barnes Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Cavendish Road commencing at its intersection with Barnes Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install '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:

·     Reducing the risk of a crash by improving the sightlines at the intersection with Cavendish Road and Barnes Road;

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes 15 metres of parking along Cavendish Road where there is a high demand for parking.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       There is a high demand for parking along this section of Cavendish Road with all available road space used for parking around the intersection with Barnes Road.  This parking is mainly generated from the Cavendish business park.  One of the main employers at the park will be relocating to the City Centre but this is not happening until March 2017.

5.2       At the intersection of Barnes Road the existing parking area restricts the sightline for motorists exiting Barnes Road.

5.3       The Police requested an extension to the 'No Stopping' restriction on Cavendish Road after attending a non-injury crash at the intersection in February 2016.  The Police noted visibility to the right from Barnes Road was limited due to vehicles parked on Cavendish Road. They expressed concern that increasing traffic could result in more such crashes happening.

5.4       There have been no other reported crashes at the intersection in the last five years but there was another similar crash in 2006.

5.5       This area will see a continual growth in traffic with a new retirement village currently being built opposite this intersection as well as residential developments in the area.

5.6       Cavendish Road is a collector road and Barnes Road is a local road.  Both roads carry approximately 2000 vehicles per day.

Proposal

5.7       It is proposed to extend the 'No Stopping' restriction to give approximately 50 metres of visibility from the intersection. This involves extending the existing 'No Stopping' restriction by about 15 metres.

5.8       This area is adjacent to a reserve so there is no loss of parking outside a residential property.

 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install 'No Stopping' restrictions on the eastern side of Cavendish Road, north of Barnes Road intersection, as shown on Attachment A.

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 consistent with this level.

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       No consultation has been undertaken for this project.  This is considered a safety issue and there are no directly affected land owners. The proposed no stopping is adjacent to a reserve.

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 - $90

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

6.5.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.6       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.

6.7       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 islands.

6.8       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

6.9       Not applicable

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.11    Implementation timeframe - Construction is programmed to be completed by the end of the 2015/16 financial year

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reducing the risk of a crash by improving the sightlines at the intersection with Cavendish Road and Barnes Road;

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes parking along Cavendish Road where there is a high demand for parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Cavendish Road will remain as is.

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 consistent with this level.

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See sections 6.4.

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 - 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:

·   No cost for works

·   No parking removed from Cavendish Road

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Cavendish Road Proposed No Stopping - Plan tg129353

67

 

 

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

Penny Gray

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

14.    Westminster Street Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Island and No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/270048

Contact:

Penny Gray

n/a

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the pedestrian refuge island and 'No Stopping' restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is in response to Shirley/Papanui Community Board that staff investigate crossing facilities on Westminster Street near Mahars Road.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approves that a central pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Westminster Street, north-east of its intersection with Mahars Road in accordance with Attachment A.

2.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-west side of Westminster Street commencing at its intersection with Mahars Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 136 metres.

3.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south-east side of Westminster Street commencing at a point 205 metres south-west of its intersection with Whitehall Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 97 metres.

4.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-west side of Westminster Street commencing at its intersection with Mahars Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres;

5.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-west side of Westminster Street commencing at a point 58 meters north-east of its intersection with Mahars Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 78 metres;

6.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-east side of Westminster Street commencing at a point 205 metres south-west of its intersection with Whitehall Street and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 97 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge island and 'No Stopping' restrictions on Westminster Street outside of Mahars Playground (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 safety for pedestrians crossing Westminster Street by providing a crossing facility;

·     The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages;

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes parking along Westminster Street, some outside residential properties.

4.4       Community Feedback

4.4.1   Community engagement on the Westminster Street, Mairehau, Pedestrian Refuge Installation was undertaken from Thursday 18 February to Wednesday 2 March 2016.

4.4.2   A total of 25 leaflets were hand delivered to Westminster Street (between Mahars Road and 291 Westminster Street). The leaflet was also sent to 96 key stakeholders and 12 absentee owners. 

4.4.3   During the course of the engagement, Council received comments and feedback from two organisation representatives relating to design layout standards for people with disabilities.  Responses have been sent to these respondents as notes in section 6.4

4.4.4   No responses, either supporting or objecting to the proposal were received from adjacent residents. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       It has been identified that there are a lack of pedestrian crossing facilities on Westminster Street.  There are pedestrian facilities at the intersections with Cranford Street and Hills Road but nothing in-between.  This creates a poor level of service for pedestrians crossing Westminster Street

5.2       Westminster Street is a collector road and forms a link between Hills/Innes Road and Cranford Street.

5.3       There are a number of facilities around Mahars Road that are pedestrian generators; St Francis of Assisi Primary School, Mairehau Primary School, a day care centre and there is a playground on the corner of Mahars Road and Westminster Street.

5.4       A pedestrian survey on 22 September 2015 from 0815 to 0915 counted 23 pedestrians crossing near the footpath into Mahars Playground, 2 in-between this footpath and Mahars Road and 7 at the Mahars Road intersection.

Proposal

5.5       It is proposed to install a pedestrian refuge island with associated flush median and 'No Stopping' restrictions near to the footpath into Mahars playground, as shown on Attachment A.

5.6       The pedestrian refuge island is offset from the playground footpath.  This stops pedestrians from walking straight out onto the road from this footpath.  It also maintains unrestricted access to 269 Westminster Street.

5.7       The 'No Stopping' restriction and flush median, around the pedestrian refuge island, maintains a lane width of 4.5 metres to allow cars and cyclists to share the lane.  It also gives both pedestrians and motorists clear visibility between each other.

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Island and No Stopping Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To install a pedestrian refuge island on Westminster Street and the associated 'No Stopping' restrictions as shown on Attachment A.

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 consistent with this level.

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       Submissions were received from Thursday 18 February to Wednesday 2 March 2016, with two responses received. No responses were received from adjacent residents.

6.4.1   One respondent did not indicate support or non-support of the safety improvements. Their feedback was in relation to use for blind people and included:

An inquiry about the width of footpath on the south side. It appears narrower and directional tactile paver's needs to be at least 1m deep. The project team removed the direction tactile pavers from the scheme as they are less than the minimum length of 1 metre recommended from Guidelines for facilities for blind and vision impaired pedestrians (RTS14).

6.4.2   The second respondent did not support the safety improvement and included the following feedback:

Concerns about the design offering only one hand rail and that it should be situated in the centre of the crossing space so as to not disadvantage person's whom have suffered a stroke. Unfortunately this respondent has misinterpreted the plan which does offer two hand/grab rails. One each side of the crossing space.

6.4.3   Project team response:

The proposed design for the pedestrian crossing complies with the CSS (Construction Standard Specifications) guidelines. Further discussions will be held on this design standard.

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 - $37,500

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.8       Funding source - Road Safety At Schools Capital Expenditure Budget

Legal Implications

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

6.10    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, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

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  - Approval by community board

6.14    Implementation timeframe - Construction to be completed by the end of this financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Westminster Street by providing a crossing facility;

·   The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages;

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes parking along Westminster Street, some outside residential properties.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Westminster Street will remain as is.

Significance

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

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       No feedback supported this option and this option would not deliver the required pedestrian safety improvements.

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 - 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:

·   Parking is retained along this section of Westminster Street

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the lack of pedestrian crossing facilities on a pedestrian desire line.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Westminster Street Proposed Pedestrian Refuge Island - Plan TP346001

75

 

 

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

Penny Gray

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

15.    Marshland Road Pedestrian Refuge Island

Reference:

16/273257

Contact:

Penny Gray

N/A

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the installation of a pedestrian refuge island with kerb build out and 'No Stopping' restrictions on Marshland Road close to its intersection with Hercules Street.  Refer to Attachment A.

1.2       A version of this report will also be presented to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board due to proposed location on Marshland Road being a boundary between the two City Wards.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated after observations of pedestrians crossing Marshland Road in the vicinity of Hercules Street to access the Palms Mall and the adjacent Shirley Library and Service Centre.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approve that a central pedestrian refuge island with associated kerb extensions be constructed on Marshland Road close to its intersection with Hercules Street in accordance with Attachment A.

2.         Approve that any parking or stopping restrictions on the western side of Marshland Road commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres be revoked.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Marshland Road commencing at its intersection with Hercules Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge island with kerb build out and 'No Stopping' restrictions on Marshland Road close to its intersection with Hercules Street (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 safety for pedestrians wishing to cross Marshland Road at this point 

·     Reduction in crossing distance with the installation of a build out

·     Central Refuge Island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes some unrestricted parking on the western side of Marshland Road outside No.29

·     Shortens the available left turn lane into The Palms Mall.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       A pedestrian refuge on Marshland Road at Hercules Street has been identified as a priority because of the difficulty pedestrians have crossing the road due to the width, and the high traffic volume of Marshland Road.  This creates a poor level of service for those living west of Marshland Road wishing to visit the mall/library.

5.2       A recent pedestrian survey revealed that 53 pedestrians crossing Marshland Road in the vicinity of Hercules Street between 4pm and 5pm with 8 of these being children.

Site Information

5.3       Marshland Road is a minor arterial and carries around 17000 vehicles a day.  The road width is 18 metres in this location.  The Palms Mall has a left turn lane that starts opposite Hercules Street on the east side of Marshland Road and continues to the signals approximately 90 metres south of this location leading to the car park.

5.4       The Shirley Library and Service Centre are also located opposite Hercules Street and they have a footpath adjacent which also allows access through to The Palls Mall.

5.5       The nearest pedestrian facilities for people wishing to cross over Marshland Road are at the entrance to The Palms car park building located 96 metres south of the proposed pedestrian refuge facility.

5.6       The proposed location has been chosen due to it being on the desire line for pedestrians who cross here wishing to access The Palms Mall and/or The Shirley Library and Service Centre.

5.7       The proposed build out on the north side will reduce the crossing distance and the pedestrian refuge will provide a waiting haven in the centre of the road, allowing pedestrians to cross the road in two stages; only having to deal with traffic approaching from one direction.

6.   Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge island and kerb build-out on Marshland Road close to Hercules Street (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To install a pedestrian refuge in the existing painted median on Marshland Road close to its intersection with Hercules Street along with the installation of a kerbed build out on the eastern side of Marshland Road to reduce the crossing distance.

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 consistent with this level.

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Community engagement on the Marshland Road, Shirley, Pedestrian Refuge Installation was undertaken from Wednesday 17 February to Wednesday 2 March 2016.

6.5       A total of 140 leaflets were hand delivered to Marshland Road (between Hammersley Avenue and Shirley Road). The leaflet was also sent to 51 key stakeholders and 54 absentee owners.

6.6       During the course of the engagement, Council received comments and feedback from one individual resident, one former Resident's Group representative and two organisational representatives. Two respondents were in support of the safety improvements and two did not state their preference. 

6.7       Submissions were received from Wednesday 17 February to Wednesday 2 March 2016, with four responses received.

6.8       Two respondents were in support of the safety improvements. Their feedback included:              -   Overjoyed about the pedestrian crossing. There are a lot of elderly that live around                      there and it is so dangerous walking through the car park.                                                            -           More than happy. They are fully supportive.

6.9       Two respondents did not state their preference and included the following feedback:                    -    Concerns about the design having the grab rails in the middle of the refuge which is an                obstacle to visually impaired people using the crossing.                                                                           -           Concerns that buses will create visibility issues for pedestrians using the refuge. Could                        the bus stop and pedestrian refuge locations be swapped outside the service centre?

6.10    Project team response: 

We are in the process of updating the CSS (Construction Standard Specifications). We will remove the centre rail and place the pedestrian hold rails on each side of the pedestrian island.

Relocating the bus stop was investigated prior to this design but was discounted due to site constraints including impacts on turning movements into Alma Place and Hercules Street and existing footpath widths.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11.1 Cost of Implementation - Around $55,000.00

6.11.2 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.11.3 Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

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

6.13    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, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    Not applicable

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by both Community Boards

6.17    Implementation timeframe - It is intended to implement before the end of this financial year 30th June 2016

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    This is the preferred option as it allows pedestrians already crossing in this location to cross with increased safety and will raise awareness to motorists that they can expect pedestrians to be crossing at this location.  There are no known disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       The road remains as it is. - Do Nothing

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 consistent.

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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       No feedback supported this option and this option would not deliver the required pedestrian safety improvements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with the Council's Plans and Policies because it does not address pedestrian safety issues.

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    This is not the preferred option as it doesn't address a known pedestrian safety issue.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Marshland Road at Hercules Street Plan (16/266461)

82

 

 

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

Penny Gray

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

16.    Application to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board's Discretionary Reponse Fund 2015/16 - Papanui Anzac Day Celebration Application 2016

Reference:

16/275674

Contact:

Christine Lane

Christine.lane@ccc.govt.nz

941 5213

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley Papanui Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

54512

Papanui RSA

ANZAC Day Citizens Service

$4,655

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Papanui Returned and Services Association.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of Papanui Returned Services Association for $1,200 towards the 2016 Anzac Community Service.

 

 

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

$98,142

$31,858

$30,658

 

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  

Shirley Papanui Decision Matrix DRF 2015-16 - Papanui RSA Inc - ANZAC Day Citizens Service

85

 

 

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

Christine Lane

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Mary Richardson

Edwina Cordwell

General Manager Customer & Community

Manager Community Governance - Shirley/Papanui

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

17.    Shirley/Papanui Community Board Ward Area Update

Reference:

16/319812

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

Judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Edible Garden Awards - 6pm, Thursday 14 April 2016, Canterbury Horticultural Society

1.2       Combined Community Board Seminar - 5.30pm, Tuesday 26 April, Committee Room 2, Civic

1.3       Annual Plan Community Forum - 5pm, Thursday 28 April 2016 at the Northcity Church.

2.   Upcoming Community Events

 

2.1       Shirley Inter-Agency Community Network Meeting - 10.30am, Friday 8 April, North Avon Baptist Church, 103 North Avon Road, Richmond

2.2       Northwood Residents' Association AGM - 7.30pm, Wednesday 13 April, 59 O'Neill Avenue

3.   Community Board Advisor's Update

3.1       Information sent to the Board recently included:

·        Safer Christchurch Strategy - Final Draft for Consultation

·        Annual Plan 2016-17 Planned Capital Programme by Ward

·        Dudley Creek - Removal of Tree 153 Stapletons Road

·        Mitre10 proposed colour scheme

·        Parks Update

·        Annual Plan information to key stakeholders

·        Christchurch Transport Operations Centre Update

 

3.2       2016/17 Annual Plan Consultation

As part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan consultation process Board members attended two community events, the Belfast Community Network Neighbours Day and the Mairehau Community Day.

At the events Board members asked for feedback on issues or ideas within the ward. The results, kindly collated by Emma Norrish, are attached to this Ward Update (Attachment A).

Does the Board wish to refer any of the matters to staff for their comment?

 

3.3       Neighbourhood Trust AGM

Staff attended the Neighbourhood Trust AGM on the evening of Tuesday 29th March. The event was attended by Board members Mike Davison and Jo Byrne.  The guest speaker was the Mayor who spoke about the importance of "Trust" and the importance of the community and its knowledge in the partnership with local government (ACTIS as an example in Aranui).

 

The event was well attended and the Trust Board praised the staff and volunteers.

 

 

 

3.4       Pedestrian Safety Issues on Kensington Avenue and Westminster Street

Two letters regarding these issues were tabled at the Board meeting of 16 March.

A reply from the Traffic Engineer giving the reasons for the chosen location of the pedestrian refuge island on Westminster Street has been circulated to Board members. This reply has been forwarded to both letter writers with an invitation to make a deputation, should they wish, to the Board at the meeting of 20 April where the report will be considered.

4.   Customer Service Request (CSR) Statistics for the Shirley/Papanui Ward

4.1       Refer to Attachment B.

5.   Funding Update

5.1       Refer to Attachment C.

 

 

6.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Community feedback - Belfast and Mairehau March 2016

89

b  

Customer Service Requests for Shirley Papanui Community Board for Month Ending 29 February 2016

90

c  

Shirley Papanui Community Board DRF and PYDS Fund Balances as at 6 April 2016

94

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Edwina Cordwell

Manager Community Governance - Shirley/Papanui

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

06 April 2016

 

 

18.  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.

 

 

 

19.  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.