Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 2 June 2016

Time:                                    8.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

26 May 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Cr Clearwater

Membership

Cr Cotter (Deputy Chair), Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr East, Cr Scandrett

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 odd.

Meeting Cycle

The first Thursday of each calendar month except for January

Reports to:

Council

Long Term Plan Activities

·         water supply and water conservation

·         sewerage collection treatment and disposal

·         land and storm water drainage

·         flood protection and control works

·         natural hazards protection

­          natural hazards policy and planning

­          land instability management

­          other natural hazards management

·         roads and footpaths (inc. pedestrian malls and cycle lanes)

·         transport (including regional public transport and NZTA)

­          transport policy and planning

­          major cycle ways

­          parking (on and off street)

­          road operations

­          public transport infrastructure (including bus stops, shelters, seats and transport hubs)

­          transport education

­          harbours and marine structures

·         parks and open spaces

­          regional parks

­          garden and heritage parks

­          cemeteries

­          neighbourhood parks

·         waste management minimisation and disposal

­          residual waste collection and disposal

­          recyclable material collection and processing

­          organic material collection and composing

­          commercial and industrial minimisation

·         natural environment

­          natural environment policy and planning

­          environmental education

­          sustainability and energy initiatives and conservation of resources (including investigating electric buses)

·         all other transport issues such as regional public transport and NZTA

 

Responsibilities

·         Developing policy and strategy in relation to long term plan activities as listed above

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities (i.e. Infrastructure rebuild, major facilities rebuild and facilities rebuild)

·         Considering recommendations from Council’s Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relation to infrastructure, transport and environmental planning, delivery and operation

·         Making decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002 where it has the delegated authority from Council to do so, or recommendations to Council where a Council decision is required.

 

Delegations

 

Riccarton Road Corridor Public Transport Priority And Hub Decision Making Delegation

 

At the Council meeting of 13 November 2014:

It was resolved that the Council:

             33.1     Confirm that the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, super stop and associated street works, and the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project are both issues of metropolitan significance within the meaning of the Council’s delegations register.

             33.2     Will make the final decision on the design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Hub waiting lounge, the super stop and associated street works.

             33.3     Delegate the decision on the final design version for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority project and associated street works to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee because of tight time-lines.

             33.4     Instruct staff to ensure that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board is kept informed on the proposals arising from both project streams and arrange appropriate briefing session(s) accordingly.

             33.5     Confirm that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will continue to make recommendations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on issues such as on-street works through Part A reports for the Riccarton Public Transport Priority and the Riccarton Public Transport Hub projects.

 

 

Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) Programme – Delivery Programme and Design Guides

 

At the Council meeting of 29 January 2015:

It was resolved that the Council:

             7.1       Note the progress update on the Major Cycleway Route programme.

             7.2       Adopt Revision A of the Major Cycleway Design Principles Best Practice Design Guide and the draft Way Finding and Signage Guide in principle for the four selected routes as detailed in 7.7.1, 7.7.2, 7.7.3 and 7.7.4.

             7.3       Agree to the route prioritisation.

             7.4       Agree to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a Metropolitan Programme and delegate to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee all decision making powers.

             7.5       Note that the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and affected Community Boards will be advised prior to any public consultation commencing on any Major Cycleway Route project.

             7.6       Note that appropriate Community Board Members will be invited by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to participate in the relevant Major Cycleway Route item discussion.

             7.7       Adopt in principle the route selection recommendations and refer the final decision to the Infrastructure Transport Environment Committee, noting the route selections as detailed below will be subject to receiving recommendations from the affected Community Board and to full consultation then approval by the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee:

                         7.7.1   Quarryman’s Trail;

                         7.7.2   Rapanui – Shag Rock;

                         7.7.3   Uni-Cycle;

                         7.7.4   Papanui Parallel.


 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 6

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 6

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

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

A       6.       Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road - Safety Issues.............................................. 27

B       7.       Briefing - Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan........................................................ 45

A       8.       Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan.................................... 63

C       9.       Shared Fleet Report....................................................................................................... 77

A       10.     Estuary Drain Concept Design...................................................................................... 95

A       11.     No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options..................................................... 111

A       12.     Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme 125

B       13.     Update on the Suburban Parking Policy Project...................................................... 139

B       14.     Zone Committee Update Report................................................................................ 167

B       15.     Transport Unit - Monthly Report............................................................................... 171

C       16.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 191  

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 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 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 5 May 2016 be confirmed (refer page 7).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Sara Templeton, Chairperson of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board has requested to speak to the Committee regarding item 6, Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road - Safety Issues. 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

 

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 5 May 2016

Time:                                    8.33am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor David East

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

4 May 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Chris Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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


 

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00024

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on Thursday, 7 April 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor Cotter/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                          Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Brother Xavier Maria spoke to the Committee on behalf of The Oratory Catholic Church regarding item 7 - Rutland Street (Weston to Chapter) Parking Option Investigation.

4.2       Adam Reed spoke to the Committee regarding item 7 of the Agenda - Rutland Street (Weston to Chapter) Parking Option Investigation.

Councillor East arrived at 8.41am

4.3       Shane Adler spoke to the Committee regarding item 6 of the agenda - Major Cycleway - Uni-Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.


 

Councillor East left the meeting at 8.55am and returned at 9.03am.

7.   Rutland Street (Weston to Chapter) Parking Option Investigation

 

Committee Consideration

Val Carter, Chairperson of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board and Mike Davidson, Chairperson of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board joined the table for the discussion of this item.

The Committee thanked staff for their work on the process and the good consultation undertaken on this project.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Retain the existing semi-mature trees on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston and do not install parking on the east side of Rutland Street as per the scheme approved by ITE at the 16th February ITE Meeting.

2.         Request staff to monitor the Springfield/St Albans and Springfield/Edgeware intersections for 12 months post implementation of the Papanui Parallel MCR Works to determine if the signalisation of the two intersections is required and if this is found, to plan for the implementation of the traffic signals in the next LTP.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00025

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Retain the existing semi-mature trees on the west side of Rutland Street between Chapter and Weston and do not install parking on the east side of Rutland Street as per the scheme approved by ITE at the 16th February ITE Meeting.

2.         Request staff to monitor the Springfield/St Albans and Springfield/Edgeware intersections for 12 months post implementation of the Papanui Parallel MCR Works to determine if the signalisation of the two intersections is required and if this is found, to plan for the implementation of the traffic signals in the next LTP.

3.         Note: That staff work with the Oratory Church to include time restricted parking outside the church.

Councillor East requested his vote again the resolutions be recorded.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 


 

 

 

6.   Major Cycleway - Uni Cycle - Section Ngahere Street to Solway Avenue

 

Committee Consideration

Mike Mora, Community Board Chairperson of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board joined the table for the discussion of this item.

Staff provided updated recommendations following a meeting with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 2 May 2016.

The Committee thanked staff for their work on the process and the good consultation undertaken on this project.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00026

Staff Recommendations and Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

A.             Approve the scheme designs for the Uni-Cycle (Ngahere to Solway) project to proceed to detailed design and construction as per the Staff Recommendations 1 and 2, but to exclude Staff Recommendations 15c and 15d, and 16g and 16h, to allow further consultation to be undertaken with residents with regard to parking restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from Clyde Road to Puriri Street.

B.             Request staff undertake additional consultation with residents on options for parking on the south side of Hinau Street.

C.             Request staff undertake additional consultation with residents for changes in priority at the Miro Street/Totara Street, and Hinau Street/Miro Street intersections.

 

1.         Approve the scheme designs for Ngahere Street, Totara Street, Miro Street, Hinau Street, Clyde Road, Ilam Road, Dovedale Avenue and Solway Avenue, proceed to detailed design and construction, as detailed in Attachment A in the agenda.

2.         Approve the scheme designs for University Drive, Ilam Fields and the widening of the shared path on the south side of Dovedale Avenue proceed to detailed design and construction, subject to University of Canterbury approval, as detailed in Attachment A in the agenda.

3.         Make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974.

4.         For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) An intersection of roadways is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway ; and (2)  The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) If the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Committee meeting of 5 May 2016; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Committee resolutions on the Uni-Cycle Major Cycleway report at the Committee meeting of 5 May 2016.

5.         Ngahere Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Ngahere Street commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction to the head of the cul-de-sac be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

6.         Ngahere Street – Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Ngahere Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction then following the northern and eastern kerb line (around the cul-de-sac) for a distance of 173 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ngahere Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ngahere Street, commencing at a point 57 metres east of its intersection with Totara Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 7 metres.

7.         Ngahere Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Ngahere Street from its intersection with Totara Street to the head of the cul-de-sac.

8.         Ngahere Street/Totara Street intersection

a.         Approve the road marking changes and traffic island changes at the Ngahere Street and Torara Street intersection as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

9.         Totara Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 107 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 94 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Totara Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

10.       Totara Street – Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 24 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Totara Street, commencing at a point 61 metres southwest of its intersection with Ngahere Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Totara Street, commencing at a point 55 metres north of its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 39 metres. Note 1 Applies.

11.       Totara Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Totara Street from its intersection with Ngahere Street to the intersection with Miro Street.

12.       Miro Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Miro Street from its intersection with Totara Street to its intersection with Hinau Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Miro Street from its intersection with Totara Street to its intersection with Hinau Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

13.       Miro Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Miro Street, commencing at its intersection with Totara Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

14.       Miro Street – Proposed Traffic control

a.         Approve the road marking changes on Miro Street from its intersection with Hinau Street to the intersection with Totara Street.

15.       Hinau Street – Existing Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to its intersection with Puriri Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street commencing from its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly then north easterly direction, for a distance of 184 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to its intersection with Konini Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Konini Street to its intersection with Puriri Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hinau Street from its intersection with Puriri Street and its intersection with Miro Street be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Hinau Street commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

16.       Hinau Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 75 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 137 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 23 metres. Note 2 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 2 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 1 Applies.

e.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 40 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a easterly then north easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres. Note 1 Applies.

f.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 147 metres north east of its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 37 metres. Note 1 Applies.

g.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction to the intersection of Konini Street. Note 1 Applies.

h.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, between its intersection with Konini Street and extending in an easterly direction to the intersection with Puriri Street. Note 1 Applies.

i.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 1 Applies.

j.          Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southern side of Hinau Street, commencing at a point 17 metres east of its intersection with Puriri Street , and extending in an easterly then north easterly direction for a distance of 135 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm between March and November only. Note 1 Applies.

k.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 Applies.

l.          Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Hinau Street, commencing at its intersection with Miro Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres. Note 1 Applies.

17.       Hinau Street - Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and raised speed platforms on Hinau Street from its intersection with Clyde Road to the intersection with Miro Street.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the north side of Hinau Street commencing at its intersection with Clyde Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 60 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Hinau Street commencing at a point 48 metres from its intersection with Konini Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda, be resolved as a shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway where bicycles can travel westbound only, in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be duly established in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 on Hinau Street located at a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road.

e.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Hinau Street on the west bound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 60 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

f.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Hinau Street on the east bound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 46 metres east of its intersection with Clyde Road, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

18.       Existing Intersection – Clyde Road/Hinau Street intersection

a.         Approve that traffic controls at the intersection of Clyde Road and Hinau Street be revoked.

19.       New Intersection – Clyde Road/Hinau Street intersection

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, road surface changes and kerb alignment changes at the intersection of Clyde Road and Hinau Street, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve that a Give-Way control be placed against Hinau Street at its intersection with Clyde Road.

20.       Konini Street - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Konini Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Konini Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and continuing in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

21.       Konini Street - Proposed Parking and Stopping Restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Konini Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Konini Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 1 Applies.

22.       Puriri Street - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies. .

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Puriri Street commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

23.       Puriri Street - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 1 Applies.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Puriri Street, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres. Note 2 Applies.

24.       Existing Intersection – Hinau Street/Puriri Street intersection

a.         Approve that all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Hinau Street and Puriri Street be revoked.

25.       New Intersection – Hinau Street/Puriri Street intersection

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, road surface changes and traffic islands at the intersection of Hinau Street and Puriri Street, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve that a Stop control be placed against Puriri Street northern approach at its intersection with Hinau Street as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

c.         Approve that a Stop control be placed against Puriri Street southern approach at its intersection with Hinau Street as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

d.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Hinaui Street against the kerb, commencing at a point 19 metres west of its intersection with the Puriri Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 44 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

e.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Hinaui Street against the kerb, commencing at a point 17 metres east of its intersection with the Puriri Street and extending in an westerly direction for a distance of 44 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

26.       Clyde Road - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 79 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and continuing in a southerly direction for a distance of 160 metres. Note 1 Applies.

27.       Clyde Road - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Clyde Road, commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 79 metres. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Clyde Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 160 metres. Note 2 Applies.

28.       Clyde Road - Existing Traffic Controls

a.         Approve that all traffic controls on Clyde Road from the intersection of Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 121 metres be revoked.

29.       Clyde Road - Proposed Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the lane marking changes and kerb alignment changes on Clyde Road from the intersection of Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 121 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the west side of Clyde Road commencing at a point 65 metres north of Kirkwood Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 106 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the east side of Clyde Road commencing at its intersection with Hinau Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 37 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a pedestrian and bicycle road crossing, controlled by traffic signals in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5(3) of the Land Transport Act- Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004, be installed on Clyde Road located at a point 22 metres north of its intersection with Hinau Street.

30.       Ilam Road - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Ilam Road commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Ilam Road commencing at a point 176 metres south of its intersection with Maidstone Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 241 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

31.       Ilam Road - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ilam Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the eastern side located on the western side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda. Note 2 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Ilam Road, commencing at its intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres. Note 2 Applies.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the eastern side located on the western side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda. Note 2 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ilam Road, commencing at a point 176 south of its intersection with Maidstone Road and extending in an southerly direction for a distance of 241 metres.  This stopping restriction is to apply to the western side located on the eastern side of the traffic island (bicycle lane separation island) inclusive of gaps for access points as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda. Note 1 Applies.

32.       Ilam Road - Existing Traffic Controls

a.         Approve that the existing pedestrian crossing on Ilam Road, located at a point 121 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue be revoked.

b.         Approve that the existing pedestrian crossing on Ilam Road, located at a point 329 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue be revoked.

33.       Ilam Road - Traffic Controls

a.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Ilam Road from the intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 217 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and traffic islands on Ilam Road from the intersection with the access named and formed as University Drive and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

c.         Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule - Traffic Control Devices: 2004 on Ilam Road, located at a point 121 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

d.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be installed in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Rule -Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004 on Ilam Road located at a point 117 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

e.         Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road North on the southbound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 110 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

f.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road South on the northbound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 127 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

g.         That a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with Section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule - Traffic Control Devices: 2004 on Ilam Road, located at a point 329 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

h.         Approve that a bicycle priority crossing be installed in accordance with section 11.4(5) of the Land Transport Rule -Traffic Control Devices Rule on Ilam Road located at a point 325 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

i.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road North on the southbound approach to the priority bicycle crossing located at a point 318 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

j.          Approve that a Give Way Control be placed against Ilam Road South on the northbound approach to the bicycle priority crossing located at a point 335 metres south of its intersection with Montana Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

34.       Dovedale Avenue - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 77 metres east of its intersection with Solway Avenue and continuing in an easterly direction for a distance of 56 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

35.       Dovedale Avenue - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 90 degree angle parking on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 77 metres east of it intersection of Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 meters. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Dovedale Avenue, commencing at a point 95 west of its intersection with Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 90 degree angle parking on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at a point 115 metres east of it intersection of Solway Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 meters. Note 1 Applies.

36.       Dovedale Avenue - Traffic controls

a.         Approve lane marking changes, road texture changes and kerb alignment changes on Dovedale Avenue from the intersection of Solway Avenue to the intersection of Waimairi Road as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue commencing at its intersection with Solway Avenue and extending to its intersection with Waimairi Road as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

c.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 60 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

d.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 105 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

e.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against the northbound vehicles where the vehicle exit for the University intersects with the shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway on the south side of Dovedale Avenue.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

f.          Approve that a regulatory supplementary 'turning traffic give-way to pedestrians and cyclists' sign be installed in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 10.5(2)(b) for left turning drivers from Dovedale Avenue to the University entrance/exit.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

g.         Approve that a regulatory supplementary 'turning traffic give-way to pedestrian and cyclists' sign be installed in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 10.5(2)(b) for right turning drivers from Dovedale Avenue to the University entrance/exit.  The vehicle exit is located at a point 171 metres east of the intersection with Solway Avenue.

37.       Solway Avenue - Existing parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

38.       Solway Avenue - Proposed parking and stopping restrictions

a.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and continuing in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres. Note 1 Applies.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue and continuing in a south westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres. Note 1 Applies.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and continuing in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres. Note 1 Applies.

39.       Solway Avenue - Existing Traffic controls

a.         Approve that all traffic controls on Solway Avenue at its intersection with Dovedale Avenue be revoked.

40.       Solway Avenue - Traffic controls

a.         Approve lane marking changes, traffic island changes and kerb alignment changes as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

b.         Approve that a give-way control be placed against Dovedale Avenue at the intersection with Solway Avenue as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.

c.         Approve that the pathway on the west side of Solway Avenue commencing at a point 12 metres north of Glenside Avenue and extending for a distance of 25 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004.

d.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound bicycles only, be established on the west side of Solway Avenue against the kerb, commencing at its intersection with Glenside Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 72 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

e.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound bicycles only, be established on the east side of Solway Avenue against the kerb, commencing at a point 25 metres northeast of its intersection with the Dovedale Avenue and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 68 metres as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda.  This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the CCC Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads and Traffic Lanes Restricted to Special Classes of Vehicles.

41.       Miro Street/Totara Street and Hinau Street/Miro Street  intersection

a.         Recommend that the traffic resolutions required for the implementation of these two intersections are brought back to the IT&E committee following additional consultation.

42.       Trees

a.         Approve that four trees be removed at the western end of Hinau Street, outside number 48 Clyde Road and 106 Hinau Street, as detailed on Attachment A in the agenda. 

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                   Carried

 

Councillor Cotter left the meeting at 10.23am and returned at 10.26am.

The meeting adjourned from 10.33am to 10.44am

 

8.   Contractor Parking Permits For Residential Homes

 

Committee Consideration

The Committee considered the staff report and noted that Dr Stuart Gowland was unable to attend the meeting to make a deputation and a request has been forwarded for a deputation to the Council meeting on 26 May 2016.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorse the current permission based approach to granting dispensation for contractors' vehicles that need to be parked for extended periods in streets/areas where parking restrictions apply.

 

Committee Decisions under Delegation

The Committee made no decisions under delegation.

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2016/00027

Part A

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Endorse the current permission based approach to granting dispensation for contractors' vehicles that need to be parked for extended periods in streets/areas where parking restrictions apply.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 


 

 

9.   Avon Temporary Stopbanks Management

 

Committee Consideration

Councillor Livingstone joined the table for the discussion of this item.

The Committee considered the staff report and noted that the Part A report containing the Committee Recommendations will be considered at the Council meeting on 12 May 2016.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Grant approval for the fast-tracked sandbag replacement construction works to be procured under existing staff delegations.

2.         Progress the preferred Temporary Stopbanks Management option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.    

 

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

The Committee made no decisions under delegation.

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2016/00028

Part A

That the Council recommend that the Council:

1.         Grant approval for the fast-tracked sandbag replacement construction works to be procured under existing staff delegations.

2.         Progress the preferred Temporary Stopbanks Management option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.    

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                               Carried

 


 

 

10. Transport Unit - Quarterly Report

 

Committee Consideration

The Committee considered the staff report.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00029

Staff Recommendations and Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the Transport Unit Quarterly Report for March 2016.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor East                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

11. Three Waters and Waste - March and April 2016 Report

 

Committee Consideration

The Committee considered the staff report.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00030

Staff Recommendations and Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Three Waters and Waste March and April 2016 report.

Councillor East/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                          Carried

 


 

 

12. Zone Committees' Annual Reports

 

Committee Consideration

Steve Lowndes, Chairperson of the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee, Christine Robb, Programme Manager for Environment Canterbury (on behalf of Arapata Reuben, Chairperson of the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee who gave his apologies for absence) and Ian Whitehouse, Facilitator for the Selwyn Waihora Zone Committee joined the table to present the Zone Committees' Annual Reports.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information in the Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora zone Committees' annual reports.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00031

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information in the Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora zone Committees' annual reports.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                            Carried

 

Committee Decided ITEC/2016/00032

Part A

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council support the Christchurch West Melton Zone Committee to work with Environment Canterbury and other Territorial Authorities to ask Central Government to develop national measures and industry standards to reduce contaminants from metal roofs and brake pads to improve water quality.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                            Carried

 


 

 

13. Briefing - Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan

 

Committee Consideration

Staff presented a briefing to the Committee on the Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan. The Committee requested that staff return to the next meeting to provide a further briefing.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information.

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00033

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information contained in the report and request a report on:

  1. Road safety resources and how they are matched to risk
  2. Ways to encourage people on to bicycles, including events.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                          Carried

 

  Deputy Mayor Buck left the meeting at 12.37pm.

14  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved ITEC/2016/00034

Part C

That at 12.37pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 171 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.46pm.

   

Meeting concluded at 12.46pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

   


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board  – 18 May 2016

 

6.        Bridle Path Road/St Andrews Hill Road - Safety Issues

Reference:

16/584589

Contact:

Barbara Strang

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

 

1.   Purpose

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board have recently considered a number of safety issues at the Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill intersection and decided to raise its concerns with the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for its information and consideration for prioritisation.  Sara Templeton, Chair of Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board has requested a deputation in relation to this report.

 

At the Board meeting on 18 May 2016, an accident between a vehicle and cyclist on Thursday 12 May 2016 was mentioned during Elected Members Information Exchange.  Excerpt from the minutes of that meeting below:

            

             Board Comment:

             Following previous information, a report to the Board (on 2 May 2016) and an accident involving a car and cyclist at the Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill intersection on 12 May 2016,   the Board considered that this matter necessitates urgent further consideration and agreed on the following: 

 

The Board decided to request that the safety issues at the Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill intersection be reported to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for urgent action.

 

2.   Background

 

At its 3 May 2016 meeting, the Board considered the report on Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill Intersection Operational Review (Attachment A), provided by staff in response to a Board request on the matters raised by the community at a public meeting held on 9 February 2016.  Paragraph 5.3 of the attached Operational Review report provides a broad summary of the community concerns raised. 

 

Following consideration of the report the following decisions were made by the Board on 3 May 2016:

 

1.         Receive the information that canvasses the concerns expressed by the community on the safety of the St Andrews Hill Road/Bridle Path Road intersection and the request for an additional camera.

2.         Request staff provide further information on the installation of traffic lights at the intersection and on the options to change the intersection including the topography.

3.         Request that staff make further minor safety improvements to the intersection including cycle marking and sensor for the traffic lights at Main Road.

4.         Request a report on lessons learnt from this project and any recommendations from staff for improvements for other projects.

 


 

 

3.  Recommendation to Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee consider the safety issues at the Bridle Path Road / St Andrews Hill intersection. 

 

Note: The safety issues are outlined in the staff report (Attachment A).  The Board decision is recorded in item 7 of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 3 May 2016 minutes (Attachment B).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Hagley Ferrymead Community Board 3 May 2016 - Bridle Path St Andrews Hill Road Intersection Report - PDF with attachments

29

b  

Minutes of Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 3 May 2016

39

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

7.        Briefing - Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan

Reference:

16/556571

Contact:

Angela McDonnell

angela.mcdonnell@ccc.govt.nz

941 8379

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       Staff presented a briefing on 5 May 2016 to the Committee regarding the Christchurch Road Safety Action Plan and the Committee requested that staff return to this meeting to go through the plan in more detail.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the information.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Christchurch City Road Safety Action Plan July 2015-June 2016

46

 

 

Signatories

Author

Angela McDonnell

Community Travel Adviser

Approved By

Steffan Thomas

Operations Manager

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

8.        Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan

Reference:

16/56335

Contact:

Karyn Teather

karyn.teather@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8161

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To update the Committee on the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Receive and adopt the information in the Christchurch City Council Freight Management Action Plan report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The CCC Freight Management Action Plan was reported to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee in March 2015 and April 2016.  It was prepared to ensure that CCC's local road network supports the movement of freight in and around the city and to address local freight issues in Christchurch. It was developed from the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan and Greater Christchurch Freight Study (which predicts significant commodity growth) to support economic development and address local freight network issues while integrating with the existing transport network.

3.2       Overarching goal: to improve the efficiency of freight movement by defining and protecting freight routes and managing freight in local areas.

3.3       Objectives:

3.3.1   Establish a good understanding of the issues surrounding local freight management within Council.

3.3.2   Understand and address local network issues.

3.3.3   Understand industry issues.

3.3.4   Mitigate the impacts of freight vehicles on communities.

3.4       The plan aims to ensure that freight issues are understood and that the network is optimised to integrate with other modes.

3.5       The plan will be monitored and implemented by a working group of CCC officers to deliver on the key focus areas:

1.    Communication

5. Wayfinding

2.    Research

6. Funding

3.    Assessment

7. Protection and Resilience

4.    Network Optimisation

 

 

There are currently no financial implications associated with the plan, however as work progresses projects may be identified for the Long Term Plan and will in turn follow the appropriate application process.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

CCC Freight Management Action Plan (2016)

65

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Karyn Teather

David Falconer

Rae-Anne Kurucz

Policy Planner - Transport

Senior Policy Planner - Transport

Team Leader Transport

Approved By

Richard Osborne

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

9.        Shared Fleet Report

Reference:

16/580393

Contact:

Kevin Crutchley

Kevin.Crutchley@ccc.govt.nz

941 8209

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of the report is to:

a.    Update the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on progress with the shared fleet project.

b.    Seek endorsement for staff recommendations.

Origin of Report

1.1       Council resolution dated 29th October 2015 supporting exploration of a shared vehicle fleet and opportunities for electric vehicles (Title of report: Shared Fleet Options and Proposal).

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of this issue against the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Request staff to seek commitments from potential shared fleet partners for a 100% electric compact car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions.

2.         Request staff to undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its shared fleet partners.

3.         Request staff to report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal and the affordability of this proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan and the objective to use a greater proportion of energy from renewable sources.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 - Shared 100% electric compact car fleet (preferred option)

·    Option 2 - Council converts its own fleet to electric cars

 

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Health and environmental benefits of zero emissions vehicle fleet

·    Council takes leadership role in adoption of electric vehicles

·    Potential for government funding.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Less control over the compact car fleet as the cars will be shared.

 

5.   Context/Background

Previous report

5.1       Staff presented the Shared Fleet Options and Proposal report to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on 8th October 2015 which was subsequently tabled at the Council meeting on 29th October 2015. This report outlined a proposal to investigate sharing a pool vehicle fleet because it offered efficiency opportunities and, importantly, because it was expected to be able to sustain a noteworthy proportion of electric vehicles. Councillors adopted the staff and committee recommendations and passed the following resolutions on 29th October 2015:

That the Council:

a.    Support staff pursuing the Shared Fleet Project being facilitated by Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) as outlined in this report.

b.    Acknowledge that the Shared Fleet Project is the best delivery mechanism to investigate and assess the possibilities for electrification of the fleet and car sharing. Staff are therefore requested to ensure that the Shared Fleet Project includes these two options in all stages of its project i.e. when going to market with the expressions of interest (EOI) and request for proposal (RFP) and the business case to be developed between these two steps.

c.     Request that staff report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee to Council on the business case, end of stage two, and seek approval on whether to proceed to the final RFP stage or not.

 

Shared Fleet Business Case

5.2       The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) prepared a business case for a vehicle fleet shared by Council, Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Meridian Energy's Christchurch operation. The business case model is that the shared fleet is owned and operated by a third party (Fleet Operator).

5.3       The business case involved the modelling of a number of scenarios for sharing fleets. The base case assumes that:

a.    The total fleet size is 100 vehicles, shared between the three agencies.

b.    Of the 100 vehicles, 84 are assumed to be compact cars (the remaining 16 vehicles include vans and utility vehicles)

c.     Of the 84 compact cars, 54 were assumed to be electric vehicles (the remaining 30 compact vehicles are assumed to be conventional internal combustion engine vehicles).

 

5.4       The EECA business case suggests that there are a number of benefits from a shared fleet, including:

a.    Lower operating costs through improved fleet management and optimised vehicle utilisation: Savings associated with sharing common services such as booking systems and consolidated fleet management. As demand profiles can differ between organisations, vehicle utilisation can be improved by smoothing out peak demand.

b.    Reducing parking requirements: A smaller total pool of fleet vehicles in the CBD.

c.     Electric vehicle uptake and carbon dioxide emission reductions: Improved vehicle utilisation in a shared fleet means that the economics of electric vehicles can be improved.

d.    Potential starting-point for a public car share scheme in Christchurch: In the current operating context it is very unlikely that an operator would set up a car share scheme without the commitment of anchor members. An initial fleet of about 100 vehicles could provide the critical mass necessary to develop and show-case a compelling value proposition to other potential users.

5.5       Additional benefits associated with the conversion of Council's pool car fleet to electric vehicles include:

a.    An investment in health and environmental outcomes (zero tail pipe emission vehicles).

b.    Alignment with global ambitions to reduce carbon emissions, as agreed at the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015, and with the New Zealand Government's post-2020 climate change target, announced in July 2015, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.

c.     Battery electric cars potentially have lower maintenance costs than internal combustion engine vehicles.

d.    Potential to reduce the number of cars in Christchurch and lead the transition to zero emission vehicles.

e.    Electric vehicles would be available for use by a range of Christchurch organisations and residents which would expose more people to electric vehicle use, help overcome myths and negative perceptions and encourage greater uptake of electric vehicles in Christchurch.

Strategic Opportunity for Christchurch

5.6       Government has recently announced a contestable fund to encourage innovation in promoting, enabling and accelerating the uptake of low emission vehicles. There is the opportunity to apply for funding for an innovative shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions in Christchurch.

5.7       Instead of sharing Council's entire pool vehicle fleet, as assumed in the EECA business case, staff recommend a shared fleet for the compact cars only and with 100% electric cars, with zero tail pipe emissions.

5.8       Staff recommend to proceed with an electric compact car shared fleet because:

a.    Compact cars are simpler to share and are available as electric cars. Only some of the non-compact vehicles are currently available as electric vehicles and their current range would not generally suit requirements for these vehicles.

b.    The distance modern electric compact cars can travel will meet shared fleet travel distance requirements.

c.     A 100% electric car fleet sends a signal to Christchurch residents that Council supports zero tail pipe emission vehicles for the benefit of Christchurch.

Next Steps

5.9       Staff propose the following next steps:

a.    Seek commitment from potential shared fleet partners to the next stage of this project.

b.    Undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its potential shared fleet partners.

c.     Apply for funding from the central government electric vehicle contestable fund.

d.    Depending on the above points, determine the affordability of the proposal against budgets.

e.    Subject to approval, implementation of a shared fleet is targeted to commence mid-2017.


 

6.   Option 1 - Shared 100% electric car fleet with zero tail pipe emissions

Option Description

6.1       Undertake a formal procurement process to engage a third party to provide a shared 100% electric car fleet, with zero tail pipe emissions, for Council and its potential shared fleet partners.

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 nil.

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       Assumed to be supportive, especially if the fleet becomes a starting point for a publicly available fleet of electric cars which is available to Christchurch residents in the future. Staff intend to plan community events to raise awareness of the benefits of electric cars alongside this project.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with the Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - Until the market has responded to the formal procurement process (for which this report seeks approval), the financial implications will not be known in detail. However, the EECA business case suggests that there will be savings from sharing a pool car fleet of with a mix of electric and internal combustion vehicles. Staff expect that sharing the compact car fleet will result in lower costs than Council converting its compact car fleet to electric vehicles on its own.

Council staff will report back through the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee on the third party proposals received; the preferred proposal; and seek approval on whether to proceed with engaging the preferred third party to operate the shared fleet for Council and its shared fleet partners.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - The savings resulting from a shared fleet can offset some of the additional cost of electric compact cars and associated charging infrastructure compared to organisations setting up their own electric compact car fleet. Council will also apply for financial support through the Government's electric vehicle contestable fund.

6.8       Funding source - Council will apply for financial support through the Government's electric vehicle contestable fund to support the implementation of a shared 100% electric car fleet.

6.9       Once staff have reviewed proposals from third parties (fleet operators) and have a better understanding of the eligibility criteria of the contestable fund recently announced by the government, staff will return to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee with a report which will provide a recommendation for procuring a shared 100% electric car fleet service (or otherwise), which will include details with regards to the financial implications.

Legal Implications

6.10    Staff do not expect this project to have significant legal implications. The formal procurement process will follow Council's procurement policies and rules.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    At present, the biggest risk to this project is not obtaining financial support through the Government’s electric vehicle contestable fund. Lack of staff buy-in and support is considered a small risk and will be mitigated through actively educating staff on the environmental and health benefits of a shared electric car fleet. Throughout the procurement process, the potential risks will be identified and mitigation measures implemented as appropriate.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - implementation is dependent on

·    at least one other shared fleet partner coming on board

·    the terms and conditions of the shared fleet operator being acceptable to Council.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - target date for commencing implementation is mid-2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·    Health and environmental benefits of zero emissions vehicle fleet

·    Little or no additional costs.

·    Council takes leadership role in adoption of electric vehicles

·    Potential for government funding.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Less control over the compact car fleet as the cars will be shared.


 

7.   Option 2 - Council converts its own fleet to electric cars

Option Description

7.1       The Council investigate the cost and potential implementation options for converting Council's fleet of compact cars to electric cars and seek Council approval to proceed with the recommended implementation option.

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 nil.

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       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is consistent with Council's Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - to be confirmed

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - to be confirmed

7.8       Funding source - to be confirmed

Legal Implications

7.9       Staff do not expect this project to have significant legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Cost and availability of electric vehicles.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - to be confirmed.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - to be confirmed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·    Greater control over the compact car fleet as it would be owned by Council.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Unlikely to receive any financial support through the Government’s electric vehicle contestable fund.

·    Greater cost than Option 1 and does not include the wider community benefits for Christchurch City that Option 1 would provide.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Shared fleet Council report Council meeting 2015 10 29

84

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Kevin Crutchley

Resource Efficiency Programme Manager

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Michael Day

Anne Columbus

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

Head of Business Partnerships

General Manager Corporate Services

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

10.    Estuary Drain Concept Design

Reference:

16/415165

Contact:

Keith Davison

Keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council which option for post-earthquake flood mitigation works within Estuary Drain area progresses to detailed design and construction.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 considering that the implications of not undertaking flood remediation in the Estuary Drain Catchment could have negative social impacts on the local community.  The proposed costs are less than originally budgeted and implications of the decisions relating to this drain affect only a small number of property owners.  The Estuary Drain project is one of the projects being delivered on a fast-track programme within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP).  As a result any community engagement will be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design tasks to speed project delivery.

2.1.2   At this stage community consultation has been limited to engagement with the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Progress the preferred Estuary Drain option (Option 1) to detailed design, consenting and construction.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

4.2       This project has been identified as medium/low priority within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP).  This area was investigated early in the programme as it was adjacent to other high priority catchments.  Even though the project is medium/low priority the project was put on the fast-track programme with works planned to begin next financial year (2016/17) as the preferred option is relatively small scale.

4.3       LDRP project options are being developed using the framework in Table 1.


 

Table 1 LDRP Options Framework

Option

Description

Repair

Repair of direct earthquake damage to the waterway (e.g. bank slumping or culvert damage)

Remediation

Restoring loss in capacity due to:

•           In-stream earthquake damage (e.g. change in slope of waterway due to level changes along its length reducing flow rate); and/or

•           Change in flood risk resulting from the earthquake damage throughout the catchment, potentially, outside the waterway in areas drained by piped networks (e.g. changes in ground levels altering flow paths and catchment sizes)

Enhancement

Options to address some or all of the following, where practicable:

•           Pre-earthquake flood risk

•           Future flood risk due to climate change and sea level rise (1 m)

•           Future development (maximum probable development, MPD)

•           Water quality treatment

•           Non-drainage values enhancement in the waterway

 

4.4       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Repair and limited remediation (preferred option): reconstruction of the Breezes Road drain along with upsizing and extension of the piped network upstream of the Breezes Road Drain adjacent with Breezes Road

·     Option 2 - Full remediation: construction of a new pump station, rising main and pipe network upgrades

·     Option 3 - Enhancement: the remediation option with greater extent of network upgrades to service a greater area

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages of the repair option (Preferred Option)

4.5.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Returns the network to a serviceable state

·     Significantly lower cost compared to alternative options

·     Construction impacts minimised

·     Not precluding future flood risk mitigation works

·     Remediates increases in flood risk associated with the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ('the earthquakes') for the two houses estimated to be at risk in a predicted 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event that were not estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes

4.5.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Does not remediate pre-earthquake flood risk for two properties that remain predicted to be at risk during an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event.  Flood risk at one of these properties has reduced as a result of the earthquakes

·     Significant numbers (126) of properties are estimated to remain at risk of underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event, which is six properties more than pre-earthquake

4.6       The preferred option will cost approximately $1.8 M +/- 30% and could be delivered next financial year. 

4.7       There are no houses estimated to be at risk of flooding above floor level in a predicted 10% AEP rainfall event both pre- and post-earthquake.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Estuary drain discharges into Otakaro / Avon River upstream of the Bridge Street bridge and collects flows from the catchment roughly bounded by Bexley Park, Cuthberts Green and Aranui Primary School.

5.2       The LDRP investigation into the Lower Avon Drains (Knights, Estuary, City Outfall and Brittans) was awarded to engineering consultants, Jacobs, in April 2015.  The study investigated earthquake related flood risk within the catchment and identified options for repair, remediation and enhancement.  The Issues, Options and Concept Design report resulted in the recommendation of repair, remediation and enhancement design concepts.

5.3       This project is identified as a medium/low priority within the LDRP and but has been put on a fast-track programme as there is direct damage to the network.  Physical works are planned to start within the 2016/17 LDRP capital works programme.  Preliminary cost estimates for the recommended repair option indicate that the works can be delivered within the budget set in the Draft Annual Plan.

5.4       The location of the proposed works are shown below.

Figure 1 Location of Proposed Works

5.5       Flooding in the catchment is driven by extreme rainfall events ('pluvial' flooding), with inundation of lower lying areas within the catchment which are poorly serviced by overland flow paths. 

5.6       Significant earthquake land damage has been observed in the area.  Some parts of the catchment have been estimated to have dropped in the order of 1 m, but more typically 200mm - 400mm in the urban area.  This has increased predicted flood risk in some areas within the catchment in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event, however buildings located within these areas are typically elevated above flood levels.  Attachment A shows the pre-earthquake flood extent in a 2% AEP event, and Attachment B shows the same event post-earthquake. Attachment C shows the difference map between the pre-earthquake flooding and the post-earthquake flooding. This shows that some areas have less depth of flooding while others have increased depth.

5.7       Floors at risk of flooding are defined as those residential dwelling floors with flooding within 100 mm of the floor level. These have been assessed for the 2% and 10% AEP pre- and post-earthquake events.

5.8       There are no floors estimated to be at risk of flooding in a 10% AEP event, either pre-earthquake or post-earthquake.

5.9       In the pre-quake predicted 2% AEP rainfall event four residential floors were estimated at risk of pluvial flooding. As a result of the earthquake effects on land levels:

·   Three of these properties are at reduced risk of flooding, of which two of them no longer considered at risk of floor level flooding

·   One property is at very similar risk as before the earthquake

5.10    In the post-quake predicted 2% AEP rainfall event there are also four residential floors estimated at risk of pluvial flooding. Of these:

·   Two of these were estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes (with one having slightly reduced flooding but remaining at risk)

·   Two are new floors estimated to be at risk. These two houses are adjacent to each other and are the target of the remediation component of the preferred option.

5.11    Properties and houses (underfloor) are at risk primarily from the local catchment pluvial flooding and are spread across the catchment, making remediation options expensive.  Pre-earthquake and post-earthquake floor levels at risk within the catchment are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Foundation and Floor Levels at Risk of Flooding (within 100 mm of floor level) Estimated in a Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event

 

Approximate Underfloor / foundation

Estimated residential floor levels at risk

Pre-earthquake

120

4

Post-earthquake

134

4

Post preferred option

126

2

 

5.12    Unlike the adjacent Knights Drain catchment, all of the urban areas are above today's 20% AEP tide but are below a similar event with predicted with 1m sea level rise.  There are localised depressions located within the catchment which present drainage challenges.

5.13    Extreme tide levels within the Avon River ('tidal' flooding) will exert increasing influence on the catchment as sea levels rise, indicating that stormwater pumping will become necessary to service the local stormwater drainage network.

5.14    Condition assessment work has been carried out within the catchment.  In summary; the Breezes Road Drain was severely damaged (Figure 2) but there has been a minimal decline in landscape and recreational value as a result of the earthquakes (noting the poor water quality and ecological health of the drain).

5.15    SCIRT has enacted works within the catchment, including installation of backflow prevention devices to limit tidal flooding, pipe repairs, and construction of a bund behind St Heliers Crescent.

5.16    A wide range of options (11) were considered within the catchment to address different areas of flooding and combinations of works.  The final repair, remediation and betterment options were developed from these options.

Figure 2 Post-Earthquake Breezes Road Drain

6.   Option 1 - Repair and Limited Remediation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The repair option consists of:

·   Replacing the damaged length of Breezes Road Drain (approximately 170 m) and other minor damages within the catchment

·   Upgrading the existing stormwater pipe network through private property parallel with Breezes Road (approximately 180 m)

·   Extending the network upstream of the upgraded pipe network through private property as a new below ground pipe or surface swale, potentially with a small pump (approximately 75 m)

6.2       The costs for this option have been estimated at approximately $1.8 M +/- 30%.  The repair estimate has been based upon replacement of the timber lining, however, alternative linings will be considered during the next design stages.  There may be some opportunities to install alternative linings but this will be heavily dependent on ground investigations, location of any potentially contaminated materials, and cost to install.

6.3       This option will decrease flood risk within the catchment and is predicted to remove the floor level flood risk from the two properties estimated to be at risk of flooding post-earthquake which were not at risk pre-earthquake.

6.4       Two of the floor levels estimated to be at risk of pre-earthquake flooding will remain at risk following implementation of the scheme. However, this risk was present pre-earthquake and the overall numbers of floor levels estimated at risk will reduce to two less than the pre-earthquake number.

6.5       There are no flooded floors predicted to be at risk during an estimated 10% AEP rainfall event.

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.  Engagement with directly affected landowners will occur during the next design stages.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       The Mayoral Flood Taskforce (2014) noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

6.9       The preferred option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for the repair works and mitigation of the new post-earthquake floor level flooding, but expressed concern that underfloor flooding was only marginally improved. The Community Board requested a seminar with further information on this option, and this will be arranged for early June.

6.10    No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  Generally council preference is to naturalise waterways during renewals and this will be explored in subsequent design stages.  However, the close proximity to landfill and lateral spread risks may preclude naturalisation.

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - The current estimates for repair works totals approximately $1.8 M +/- 30%.

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs for the drain will not be materially affected over the life of the asset as the proposed option is a renewal rather than construction of a new asset.

6.14    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  The draft annual plan has $ 918,000 allocated to the project in FY 2016/17 and a total of $14.7 M over 3 financial years.  Some funds may need to be brought back from later financial years to enact the works on the current programme.  The vast majority of this funding will need to be returned to the LDRP programme budget to facilitate other flood mitigation projects across the city.  HIGG approval will be required to support cost share funding.

Legal Implications

6.15    A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

6.16    Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

6.17    There are proposed works on private property.  These works directly benefit the affected parties or their close neighbours.  Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

6.18    There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

6.19    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

6.20    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

6.21    Access to private property will be required to enact the works.  There are programme risks associated with implementing the works.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project other than access to private property.

6.23    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design is currently programmed for completion by the end of 2016 with completion of physical works by the end of next financial year (30 June 2017) but this is dependent on property access.  Existing delegated authorities will be used to award the construction contracts.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Returns the network to a serviceable state

·   Significantly lower cost compared to alternative options

·   Construction impacts minimised

·   Not precluding future flood risk mitigation works

·   Remediates increases in flood risk associated with the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence ('the earthquakes') for the two houses estimated to be at risk in a predicted 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event that were not estimated to be at risk before the earthquakes

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not remediate pre-earthquake flood risk for two properties that remain predicted to be at risk during an estimated 2% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) rainfall event.  Flood risk at one of these properties has reduced as a result of the earthquakes.

·   Significant numbers (126) of properties are estimated to remain at risk of underfloor flooding in the predicted 2% AEP rainfall event, slightly above the pre-earthquake number of 120.


 

7.   Option 2 - Full Remediation

Option Description

7.1       The full remediation option consists of:

·   Construction of a new pump station and rising main in Bexley Reserve

·   A new outfall structure within Estuary Drain

·   Upgrades to the stormwater network

·   New stormwater network within the upstream catchment

7.2       This option provides the same floor level flooding reduction benefit as Option 1.  It reduces the predicted flood depths at all of the properties where the risk of floor level flooding has increased as a result of the earthquakes in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event.  The option drops the number (2) of floor levels at risk to below that predicted in the pre-earthquake 2% AEP rainfall event (4).

7.3       The main benefit of this option is to reduce underfloor and street flooding. This option will reduce the estimated number of properties with underfloor flooding predicted in the 2% AEP rainfall event to approximately 94 and below the pre-earthquake number of approximately 120.  These works are costly due to the distributed nature of the flooded properties at risk of underfloor flooding.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is medium and inconsistent with section 2 of this report given the increased costs with this option.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are greater than option 1.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       The Mayoral Flood Taskforce noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

7.7       A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board was held on 21 October 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area, and a full remediation option was presented.  At that meeting the Community Board did not support this option given the estimated costs for the project for the limited additional benefit.  However, in an update to the Community Board on 16 May 2016 they expressed concerns that there will be unresolved post-earthquake underfloor flooding. They expressed a preference for options which resolve underfloor flooding. Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation - The costs for this work have been estimated at approximately $16 M (including a 15% contingency).

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There would be ongoing costs associated with maintaining and operating a new pump station.

7.11    Funding source - Costs for this option exceed the current budget of $14.7 M.  The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has sufficient funding in years 2017/18 onwards to enact the remediation option but this could delay or preclude other, more viable, works in other parts of the city.

Legal Implications

7.12    A detailed consenting analysis would be required during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

7.13    Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

7.14    There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

7.15    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

7.16    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

7.17    Dependency on pump stations for flood management increases risk of failure during a flood event.

Implementation

7.18    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

7.19    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design could begin FY 16/17.  A preliminary implementation programme indicates completion of the detailed design within 12 months followed by a 2 year construction programme with completion mid-2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Remediation of flood risk with a return, approximately, to pre-earthquake numbers of residential floors estimated in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event (2) (same as option 1)

·   Reduces the risk for approximately 40 of the estimated 134 houses at risk of underfloor flooding predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes.  Prior to the earthquakes the number of houses at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding is estimated at approximately 120 and would drop to approximately 94 with this option

·   Improved peace of mind for residents in areas significantly affected by the earthquakes

·   Provides a resilient option to address future sea level rise effects, where tidal inundation could be a regular occurrence

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Significant costs that are much greater than the repair costs and significantly outweigh the reduction in damages resulting from the works

·   Reliance on flood protection by mechanical means

8.   Option 3 - Enhancement

Option Description

8.1       The enhancement option consists of the remediation option (Option 2) but with a greater extent of new stormwater network within the upstream catchment.

8.2       The works drops the number (1) of floor levels at risk to below that predicted in the pre-earthquake 2% AEP rainfall event (4).

8.3       The number of foundations at risk in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event reduces below pre-quake levels to approximately 60.

8.4       These works are costly due to the distributed nature of the floor levels at risk.

Significance

8.5       The level of significance of this option is medium and inconsistent with section 2 of this report given the increased costs with this option.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are greater than the other options.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.6       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

8.7       The Mayoral Flood Taskforce (2014) noted, amongst other things, that residents identified concern over the health, social and financial effects of increased depth and frequency of flooding.

8.8       A joint seminar between the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board was held on 21 October 2015 to better understand community views and preferences in this area and an enhancement option was presented. .  At that meeting the Community Board did not support this option given the estimated costs for the project for the limited additional benefit. However, in an update to the Community Board on 16 May 2016 they expressed concerns that there will be unresolved post-earthquake underfloor flooding. They expressed a preference for options which resolve underfloor flooding. Community views and preferences have not been specifically canvassed for this option other than engagement with the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation - The costs for this work have been estimated at over $20 M (including a 15% contingency).

8.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There would be ongoing costs associated with maintaining and operating a new pump station.

8.12    Funding source - Costs for this option exceed the current budget of $14.7 M.  The Land Drainage Recovery Programme has sufficient funding in years 2017/18 onwards to enact the remediation option but this could delay or preclude other, more viable, works in other parts of the city.


 

Legal Implications

8.13    A detailed consenting analysis would be required during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.  As the designs progress there may be a need to apply for new consents particularly if contaminated land is discovered.  Land use and earthworks consents are likely to be required for some components of the proposed works.

8.14    Council may need to utilise powers under the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951, or other legislation, to implement the scheme.

Risks and Mitigations

8.15    There are listed land use register sites within the area of the proposed works.  Further investigation may discover contaminated land which could influence consenting requirements and construction costs.

8.16    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

8.17    Evaluation of tree removals has not occurred at this stage.  Tree surveys and arborist reports will be commissioned through the detailed design process and tree removals may be identified.  Any removals will follow standard Council approvals processes.

8.18    Dependency on pump stations for flood management increases risk of failure during a flood event.

8.19    The extent of the proposed new pipe work could result in rework of recently laid roads completed by SCIRT.

Implementation

8.20    Implementation dependencies - There are no particular dependencies that have been identified that could delay the project.

8.21    Implementation timeframe - Detailed design could be started FY 16/17.  A preliminary implementation programme indicates completion of the detailed design within 12 months followed by an approximate 2 year construction programme, with completion mid-2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Mitigates all estimated residential properties estimated to be risk of floor flooding in a predicted 2% AEP rainfall event

·   Reduces the risk for approximately 73 of the estimated 134 houses at risk of underfloor flooding predicted in an estimated 2% AEP rainfall event since the earthquakes.  Prior to the earthquakes the number of houses at risk of underfloor / foundation flooding is estimated at approximately 120 and would drop to approximately 60 with this option

·   Improved peace of mind for residents in areas significantly affected by the earthquakes

·   Provides a resilient option to address future sea level rise effects, where tidal inundation could be a regular occurrence

8.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Significant costs that are much greater than the repair costs and significantly outweigh the reduction in damages resulting from the works

·   Reliance on flood protection by mechanical means

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Pre-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

108

b  

Post-Earthquake Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth

109

c  

Predicted 2% AEP Rainfall Event Flood Depth Difference Map

110

 

 

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

Tom Parsons

Surface Water Engineering Consultant

Approved By

Keith Davison

John Mackie

Peter Langbein

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Head of Three Waters & Waste

Finance Business Partner

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

11.    No. 1 Drain Earthquake Damage Repair Options

Reference:

16/512466

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council which option for the repair of No. 1 Drain to progress to detailed design and construction.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 considering the limited impact of the proposed works (one property) and the potential for positive ecological and cultural outcomes. As a result any community engagement will be undertaken in parallel with the detailed design tasks to speed project delivery.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Progress the preferred repair option (Option 1) which involves the Land Drainage Recovery Programme undertaking:

a.         Detailed design of the naturalisation of No. 1 Drain

b.         Construction works to naturalise the western half of the drain

c.         Spot repairs to earthquake damage in the eastern half of the drain (if required)

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

4.2       This project has been identified as medium/low priority within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) and is on the fast-track programme with works planned to begin next financial year (2016/17).

4.3       DRP project options are being developed using the framework in Table 1.

Table 1 LDRP Options Framework

Option

Description

Repair

Repair of direct earthquake damage to the waterway (e.g. bank slumping or culvert damage)

Remediation

Restoring loss in capacity due to:

•           In-stream earthquake damage (e.g. change in slope of waterway due to level changes along its length reducing flow rate); and/or

•           Change in flood risk resulting from the earthquake damage throughout the catchment, potentially, outside the waterway in areas drained by piped networks (e.g. changes in ground levels altering flow paths and catchment sizes)

Enhancement

Options to address some or all of the following, where practicable:

•           Pre-earthquake flood risk

•           Future flood risk due to climate change and sea level rise (1 m)

•           Future development (maximum probable development, MPD)

•           Water quality treatment

•           Six values enhancement

 

4.4       Modelling is currently underway to confirm the need or otherwise for a remediation option for the No. 1 Drain.

4.5       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Repair through naturalisation (preferred option): naturalisation of western half and spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half

·     Option 2 - Repair with concrete channel: like for like repair with new concrete channel for the western half and spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half

·     Option 3 - Enhancement: naturalisation of full length

4.6       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improved hydraulic capacity and will allow scope for future enhancement if necessary

·     Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·     Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·     Preferred option of the principal landowner

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Higher capital cost than concrete channel

·     Only half of the channel is naturalised, reducing the ecological and cultural benefits when compared to the enhancement option

4.7       The preferred option will cost approximately $1.5 M +/- 30% and could be delivered next financial year.  Budget is currently available within the LTP.

 

5.   Context/Background

Location

5.1      

No. 1 Drain is a 480 m long concrete lined drain located in Christchurch Golf Club’s Shirley Links Golf Course between Marshland Road and Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1 Location of No. 1 Drain

 

5.2       In pre-European times Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake was the site of a significant Māori settlement called Te Oranga. The Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan notes, “Water quality at Waikākāriki (Horseshoe Lake) is particularly degraded. It is a significant urban drainage sink with multiple stormwater inputs draining urban and rural land. Despite the degraded water quality, Waikākāriki scored high in a recent cultural health assessment, largely due to the presence and abundance of remnant/restored native vegetation and wetland/ spring values. Given that there is good remnant/restored native vegetation at this traditional settlement (Te Oranga) and food gathering site, and therefore a good potential to achieve full cultural health, Ngāi Tahu have identified it as a priority site with regard to addressing water quality issues.”

Earthquake damage

5.3       A condition assessment of No. 1 Drain was carried out under the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) in 2015 as it was known that it had suffered extensive earthquake damage, with emergency repairs already undertaken on the worst affected parts of the drain. The investigation concluded that:

·   Replacement or significant repair is required over the western half (205 m or 43% of the total length)

·   Patch repairs required over the remaining length of the eastern half (275 m or 57% of the total length)

5.4       Figure 2 shows the areas which require repair and/or replacement, with sections requiring replacement shown as red lines, and repair shown as red dots.

 

Figure 2 Locations of replacement or repair on No. 1 Drain

 

Repair options

5.5       Due to the extensive nature of the earthquake damage the western half of the drain requires full replacement. This falls within the current scope of the LDRP.

5.6       The LDRP developed the concept design of three options for replacement of the damaged concrete channel:

·   Option A: Repairing and/or replacing the concrete channel in a like for like manner

·   Option B: Removing the concrete channel and replacing with 3:1 earth banks

·   Option C: Removing the concrete channel and naturalising the waterway

5.7       The profiles of each of these three options are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 Profile options for No. 1 Drain

 

5.8       The unit length costs (construction cost only) for each option are similar:

·   Concrete lining (like for like) - $2,600/m

·   Grassed slopes (3:1 banks) - $2,550/m

·   Naturalisation (planted banks, varied habitats) - $2,900/m

5.9       There is a relatively small cost increase per unit length for naturalisation compared to the other alternatives but significantly higher ecological benefits. For these reasons the preferred option is repair of the western half through naturalisation. Alternative options of like for like repair (with concrete) or enhancement (full naturalisation) were also considered and are included in the options assessment. 

5.10    The options have been discussed with Golf Club and naturalisation is their favoured option and they were positive toward the previous naturalisation by Council of No. 2 Drain in the northern portion of the golf course. Detailed design will need to ensure that the golf course is minimally impacted, but initial discussions have indicated that course requirements can be incorporated.

5.11    The eastern half only requires spot repairs to address earthquake effects under the current LDRP scope. However the spot repairs will only take place if it is confirmed that no works will take place to either naturalise or widen this section.

5.12    Naturalisation of this section will either require the LDRP to demonstrate that additional capacity is required or funds from other Council programmes to be allocated to the naturalisation. An alternative is for the LDRP scope to be extended for this project to include enhancement of the full length of the drain, and this is presented as Option 3 below.

Potential alignment with Avon Stormwater Management Plan

5.13    The No. 1 Drain lies within the area covered by the Avon Stormwater Management Plan (SMP).

5.14    Naturalisation by itself does not significantly improve water quality, although there are ecological benefits through additional habitats and shading of the waterway.

5.15    Discussions with those involved in the implementation of the Avon SMP have indicated that some water quality benefits can be achieved through the introduction of an on-line treatment facility (e.g. first flush basin) in an area of the Golf Course between fairways.

5.16    Early discussions with Christchurch Golf Club have indicated an openness to this proposal, and this may allow some funds from the Avon SMP to be used toward the full naturalisation of the drain.

5.17    At this stage the feasibility and cost of this option has not been assessed and it is not taken into account in the options assessment.


 

6.   Option 1 - Repair through naturalisation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option involves the LDRP repair of earthquake damage through replacing the damage concrete lining western half of the drain with natural banks, and spot repairs of damage in the eastern half (if necessary).

6.2       Naturalising a channel provides a greater variety of habitats as can be seen in the indicative cross-section is shown in Figure 4. A low flow channel will re-create elements of a natural stream habitat, with planting on the banks providing shading for the waterway and a varied terrestrial habitat.

6.3       In Figure 4 the red dashed line shows the original profile of the concrete drain. This shows that through naturalisation there is also a significant increase in hydraulic capacity which will not restrict opportunities to enhance flows in the upper catchment.

Figure 4 Typical naturalised cross-section

 

6.4       Naturalisation of No. 2 drain in the northern section of the golf course was successfully achieved by Council in 2007-8, and this serves as a template for the naturalisation of the western half of No. 1 drain.

6.5       If additional capacity in the eastern half is required, or funds for naturalisation are identified, then no repairs will be required for the eastern half. However, if this section is to be left as it is then earthquake damage to the eastern half of the drain will be spot repaired under the LDRP but the channel lining and alignment will not change.

6.6       Detailed design of the naturalisation of the entire length of the drain is undertaken by the LDRP. This offers the most efficient use of design resources and consistency of design.

6.7       The construction works to naturalise the eastern half will be dependent on one of the following to occur:

·   Demonstrating, through hydraulic modelling, that additional capacity is required to address increased flooding due to earthquake induced settlement in the upstream catchment. Replacement of the eastern half of the drain would then fall within LDRP scope.

·   Identifying funds from other programmes within Council, from agencies outside of Council for naturalisation of waterways, or through cost-share with the Golf Club. Initial discussions with a number of these parties have indicated that funds are limited and higher priority projects may exist.

·   Staging the replacement, with the eastern half being replaced in the future by Council when it comes up for renewal.

6.8       If modelling shows that additional capacity is necessary to remediate increased flooding in the upper catchment due to earthquake effects then naturalisation of the entire length of the drain is proposed under this option.

Significance

6.9       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

6.10    The preferred option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area.  The Community Board expressed support for naturalisation, but there was not time at the meeting to discuss the alternatives for full or partial naturalisation. A seminar has been organised with the Community Board for 7 June 2016 to present the options in more detail.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.12    It is considered that the impact is positive, with a positive benefit on cultural and ecological values, and some benefit to water quality.

6.13    Due to the significance of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake to mana whenua the detailed design will need their input.

Community Views and Preferences

6.14    Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on naturalisation of the western half has been positive, but there is a preference for the naturalisation works to extend the full length of the concrete lined channel.

6.15    No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.17    Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction of the western half is $1.5 million +/- 30%. If the eastern half requires naturalisation under the LDRP to provide additional capacity then this will cost an additional $0.5 million +/- 30%.

6.18    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a naturalised waterway will be higher than for a concrete channel, but the future renewal cost is less.

6.19    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the naturalisation of the entire length. If only the western half of the drain is naturalised then surplus funds will be returned to the programme. 

Legal Implications

6.20    A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

6.21    Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

6.22    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

6.23    Implementation dependencies - If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

6.24    Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved hydraulic capacity and will allow scope for future enhancement if necessary

·   Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·   Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·   Preferred option of the principal landowner

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Higher capital cost than concrete channel

·   Only half of the channel is naturalised, reducing the ecological and cultural benefits when compared to the enhancement option


 

7.   Option 2 - Repair with concrete channel

Option Description

7.1       This option is similar to Option 1, except that repair of the western half is with concrete channel rather than through naturalisation. Spot repair of earthquake damage in the eastern half will also be required.

7.2       This option maintains No. 1 drain as a lined channel with minimal ecological value.

7.3       Current hydraulic capacity will be maintained but not increased.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

7.5       This option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area.   The Community Board did not support this option, expressing instead a preference for naturalisation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

7.7       While this proposal has not been specifically discussed with mana whenua it is expected that the preference will be for naturalisation rather than replacing with concrete lined channel.

Community Views and Preferences

7.8       Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on the proposal is that naturalisation is the preferred option from a safety and aesthetic viewpoint.

7.9       No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.11    Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction is similar to that for Option 1 at $1.5 million +/- 30%.

7.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a concrete channel will be less than that for a naturalised waterway but the future renewal cost is significantly higher.

7.13    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the naturalisation of the entire length. If only half of the drain is replaced (Option 2) then surplus funds will be returned to the programme.

Legal Implications

7.14    A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

7.15    Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

7.16    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies - If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

7.18    Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Slightly reduced construction cost

·   Lower annual maintenance costs

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No improvement in hydraulic capacity

·   Is inconsistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·   Does not align with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·   Is not the preferred option of the principal landowner


 

8.   Option 3 - Enhancement through full naturalisation

Option Description

8.1       This option is identical to Option 1 but naturalisation of both the western and eastern halves will take place through the LDRP.

8.2       This option provides the greatest immediate ecological benefit as the naturalised channel will extend from Horseshoe Lake right through the golf course. This extends the habitat currently provided in Horseshoe Lake.

8.3       There be some minor water quality benefits through trapping of some sediment and reduction in water temperatures through shading, but the naturalisation is primarily for improvement of ecological rather than water quality values.

8.4       The additional cost of this option over and above Option 1 (partial naturalisation) is $500,000. This is due to the longer length over which naturalisation will take place.

8.5       Further modelling is underway to establish if the increased capacity is required in the western half to meet other LDRP objectives (such as remediation of flooding in the upper catchment as a result of earthquake induced settlement).

Significance

8.6       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform the community of the works.

8.7       This option was presented to the Burwood-Pegasus Community Board on 16 May 2016 to better understand community views and preferences in this area. The Community Board expressed support for naturalisation, but there was not time at the meeting to discuss the alternatives for full or partial naturalisation. A seminar has been organised with the Community Board for 7 June 2016 to present the options in more detail.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

8.9       It is considered that the impact is positive, with a positive benefit on cultural and ecological values, and some benefit to water quality.

8.10    Due to the significance of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake to mana whenua the detailed design will need their input.

Community Views and Preferences

8.11    Christchurch Golf Club are specifically affected by this option due to the waterway being located on land owned by Golf Club.  The proposal has been discussed with the Golf Club and their members have been informed of the discussions. Feedback from the Golf Club on naturalisation of the full length has been positive.

8.12    No other feedback from the community has been sought at this stage, but the community will be informed through the Community Board and through communications updates.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.14    Cost of Implementation - The current estimate for detailed design and construction is $2.0 million +/- 30%.

8.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual maintenance costs of a naturalised waterway will be higher than for a concrete channel, but the future renewal cost is less.

8.16    Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.  Use of LDRP funds for enhancement (naturalisation) is currently outside of scope and agreement will need to be obtained to extend the scope for this project.

Legal Implications

8.17    A detailed consenting analysis will be undertaken during the next design stage but initial investigations have identified that the proposed works may be consistent with conditions of specific and/or global consents already held by Council.

8.18    Other consents, such as, Heritage New Zealand, tree removal and building consents will be scoped and obtained, if required, during the next design stage.

Risks and Mitigations

8.19    Costs will be re-estimated during the detailed design stage.  The detailed design cost estimates may vary from the current cost estimates.

Implementation

8.20    Implementation dependencies:

·   Implementation of this option is dependent on gaining an agreement to extend the LDRP scope to include enhancement for this project.

·   If agreement to enact the works is not obtained from Christchurch Golf Club then delays may be introduced into the project.

8.21    Implementation timeframe - The preliminary programme is detailed design commencing August 2016 and construction commencing January 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Greatest ecological benefit

·   Is consistent with Council's six values approach to managing waterways

·   Aligns with the aims of Ngai Tahu for improving the water quality and ecological health of Waikākāriki/Horseshoe Lake

·   Preferred option of the principal landowner

·   Improved hydraulic capacity

8.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Higher capital cost

·   Allocation of LDRP funds to naturalisation means that the funds available to restore pre-earthquake flood risk in other locations will be reduced by approximately $500,000.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Christensen

Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison

Peter Langbein

John Mackie

David Adamson

Unit Manager - Storm Water & Land Drainage Rebuild

Finance Business Partner

Head of Three Waters & Waste

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

12.    Construction site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

Reference:

16/518728

Contact:

Pana Togiaso

pana.togiaso@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5294

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to make a recommendation to Council in relation to the extension of the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council resolution (30) passed at the Christchurch City Council meeting on 26 March 2015.

1.3       The Council resolved to approve this programme for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

1.4       This period, for the purposes of this report, can be considered a pilot.

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 assessing the criteria in the Significance and engagement Policy

2.1.2   The level of community engagement and/or consultation provided in this report reflects the assessed level of significance.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council continue and extend the Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme for two years with the following recommended changes:

1.         Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

2.         Simplify the current design guidelines

3.         Implement standard graphics option including

a.         Print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.  

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.9 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - (preferred option) Retain the current programme with some amendments; that improve on the current programme and ensure that Council's obligations and principals are maintained and/or exceeded in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition  

·     Option 2 - Retain the current programme with no changes; i.e. rely on the current programme and processes to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

·     Option 3 - Cease the programme; i.e. rely on the existing processes without the programme to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduce visual impact of construction hoardings, increase visual amenity for the public and visitors alike, enhancing the resident and visitor experience

·     Simplify the application process, reduce approval requirements and therefore staff time whilst maintaining high quality visual outcomes

·     Increase flexibility of options and entry points reducing barriers enabling greater uptake of the programme

·     Provide a viable option for developers that want to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges reducing pressure on staff by developers. Levels the field.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some additional upfront cost to implement the recommended changes.

4.4       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages Option 2

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     No additional upfront cost in implementing the recommended changes

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Ongoing low uptake of the programme i.e. not commensurate with staff time or investment

·     Doesn’t provide a viable option for a wide range of developers or developments, high barrier to engagement

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages Option 3

4.5.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     No cost implication

4.5.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Unlikely to reduce the visual impact of hoardings

·     Unlikely to maintain or exceed resident satisfaction with footpath condition

·     Removes option for developers to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges. This is likely to lead to ongoing pressure from some developers to waive these charges.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       This programme was implemented to reduce the visual impact of hoardings, enhance the resident and visitor experience and support visual amenity during the rebuild. It forms part of the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild.

·   This is achieved through incentivising land owners and developers to contribute to the creative culture of the city by providing artwork on construction hoardings that occupy legal road in exchange for a waiver of the temporary use of legal road fees (TUOLR) on the area the hoarding occupies.

·   It normalises the inclusion of design values to improve clarity, prudent branding prominence, the reduction of unnecessary promotion or visual clutter to hoardings.

·   Any rebate available under this resolution ceases at 30 June 2016 unless renewed.

·   The impact of hoardings has not decreased in the intervening period, the increased pace of development has led to a greater number of solid hoardings versus chain link fencing.

·   Whilst not all hoardings encroach into legal road and therefore accountable to pay fees, the current levels of fencing and hoarding in the city can contextualise the scale of potential hoarding availability of which some would have the opportunity to be converted to creative use. Current civil defense fencing in the CBD is 6150 metres. The proposed sites for the new convention centre, Metro Sports and the Central Library total 3,100m. Private development in terms of linear metres of hoarding isn't tracked (rather square meters for charge of the TUOLR fee) and will fluctuate as developments start and finish, however it is conservatively estimated at approx. 2,700m within the 30km central city alone.

Review

5.2       Overall the programme has had low uptake. Two hoardings have been produced with a few others about to be delivered. Both completed hoardings have been completed to a high standard and add amenity.

Some of the reasons for the low uptake of the programme as it currently stands are:

·   Current stage of development. For a majority of sites either underway or well past the stage where the incentive would factor into budget considerations when it was implemented, the time and cost of engaging an artist or designer to develop the hoarding isn’t warranted. The budget has already been allocated to cover the TUOLR cost.

·   Insufficient marketing of the incentive through both internal and external channels

·   Insufficient understanding, experience or confidence by developers in contracting artists and managing creative projects.

·   Bespoke designs therefore require a reasonable level of support from council staff to both promote and assist the developer or construction company to deliver. Staff levels have been insufficient to support this fully.

There are also still challenges to the payment of the TUOLR fee by developers which can be met by the offer of this incentive.

Recommendations

5.3       The following changes are recommended to the programme.

·    Disseminate information on the programme to capture the various levels of construction delivery (developers, architects, planners, construction companies).

·    Simplify the current design guidelines

·    Implement standard graphics option

-     This provides print ready files of pre-designed graphics that can be downloaded from the Council's website, printed, and installed following a guide by the developer.

-     Follows a very successful City of Sydney model as part of their revamp of their hoardings policy, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/building-and-construction-approvals/temporary-structures/hoardings-and-scaffolding/standard-graphics  

-     City of Sydney initially worked with two local prominent graphic design companies to produce three suites of works that could be rearranged within each suite into various configurations providing a greater amount of variation and adaptability

-     The success of this programme in its first year has meant that they are currently contracting with new designers to produce 10 suites and have plans in 2017 to go out to a public submission process to gather further designs.

6.   Option 1 - Retain the current programme with some amendments (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Improve on the current programme and ensure that Council's obligations and principals are maintained and/or exceeded in reference to the provision of resident satisfaction with footpath condition  

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 applicable.

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       These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2

6.5       Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1   Although this issue is not specifically identified in the Council's Long Term Plan it will assist in improving the urban environment i and is consistent with the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild as per the community outcomes under Liveable City.

6.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - not applicable

6.6.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

6.7       Temporary use of legal road charges are made across a range of developers on a regular basis. The cost of this has recently increased from $7.50 per month to $15 per month (per square metre).  Previously the expected revenue in the 2015 was anticipated to be $400,000. The revenue was budgeted to be approximately $450,000 in 2016 and is anticipated to be $500,000 in 2017. Examples of organisations paying these charges include: Fletcher Construction, Armitage Williams, Carter Group, Leighs Construction, Naylor Love, Southbase.

6.8       The cost of the fee rebate programme depends on the number of qualifying applications however it is proposed that an upper limit per site per annum be determined.

6.9       The implementation of a standard graphics component is incorporated as part of Urban Regenerations budget as a one off cost.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance is not applicable as the outcome, a creative hoarding, is the responsibility of the developer to maintain. Staff time is required to assess the proposed creative hoardings to ensure they meet the criteria to be eligible for the rebate. As noted staff time is expected to reduce with the introduction of amendments to the programme.

6.11    Funding source - Transport Operations.

Legal Implications

6.12    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    None identified

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - securing Council's approval by the end of the current programme 30 June 2016.

6.15    Implementation timeframe - two months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduce visual impact of construction hoardings, increase visual amenity for the public and visitors alike, enhancing the resident and visitor experience

·   Simplify the application process, reduce approval requirements and therefore staff time whilst maintaining high quality visual outcomes

·   Increase flexibility of options and entry points reducing barriers enabling greater uptake of the programme

·   Provide a viable option for developers that want to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee reducing pressure on staff by developers. Levels the field.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some additional upfront cost to implement the recommended changes.

7.   Option 2 - Retain the current programme with no changes

Option Description

7.1       The Council will rely on the current programme and processes to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition.

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 applicable.

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       These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Although this issue is not specifically identified in the Council's Long Term Plan it will assist in improving the urban environment and is consistent with the longer term strategy of Urban Regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitor alike with the rebuild as per the community outcomes under Liveable City.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - not applicable

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - none as the programme in its current form is already running

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

7.8       Funding source - Transport Operations

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - securing Council's approval by the end of the current programme 30 June 2016.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No added upfront cost in implementing the recommended changes

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Ongoing low uptake of the programme i.e. not commensurate with staff time or investment

·     Doesn’t provide a viable option for a wide range of developers or developments, high barrier to engagement

8.   Option 3 - Cease the programme

Option Description

8.1       Rely on the existing processes without the programme to ensure Council's obligations and principals are maintained in reference to the provision of satisfactory footpath condition

Significance

8.2       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 applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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

8.4       These are not required for this project though the experiences of developers with the current programme have been collated and are noted in point 5.2.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.5.1   Inconsistent with Level of Service: 16.0.9 Maintain resident satisfaction with footpath condition and also community outcomes noted under Liveable City

8.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - doesn't meet Council objectives to provide an attractive and well-designed urban environment where urban areas are well designed and meet the needs of the community. 

8.5.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - zero cost as the current programme will be ceased

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

8.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

8.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Not applicable

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - will need to remove website information and advise staff of changes before 30 June 2016

8.12    Implementation timeframe - 1 week

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost implications

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Unlikely to reduce the visual impact of hoardings

·    Unlikely to maintain or exceed resident satisfaction with footpath condition

·    Removes a viable option for developers to reduce their costs in regard to Temporary Use of Legal Road charges. This is likely to lead to direct pressure from specific developers to council staff and potentially elected members.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

15 211308 2015-02-26 Construction Site Hoardings - Temporary Use of Legal Road Fee Rebate Programme

134

 

 

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

Mair Jo

Pana Togiaso

Transitional Projects Advisor

Team Leader Road Amenity & Asset Protection

Approved By

Steffan Thomas

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Operations Manager

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

13.    Update on the Suburban Parking Policy Project

Reference:

16/501643

Contact:

David Falconer

David.Falconer@ccc.govt.nz

9418440

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the Suburban Parking Policy project and receive the consultation document.

Origin of Report

1.2       Staff have previously held briefings (on 9 December 2015 and 7 April 2016) with the Committee on suburban parking policy and the Committee has endorsed staff undertaking consultation with key stakeholders to obtain their feedback before any policy is drafted. This report gives the Committee an overview of the material that staff are considering using for consultation with key stakeholders.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined through an assessment against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. There is likely to be widespread interest from communities across the city on how suburban parking is managed. However a suburban parking policy does not change or remove any specific parking spaces. Rather a policy would only provide guidance to inform any future decisions on individual parking spaces.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the draft suburban parking policy discussion document

2.         Note that staff are planning to undertake consultation with key stakeholders in late June/July 2016.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       One of the actions from the Council's Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan 2012-2042, is to improve parking management. Developing a policy on suburban parking will help improve parking management and help provide more consistent decisions on parking across the city.

4.2       The Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 is scheduled for review in the next year, so it is an opportune time to develop a policy on suburban parking to inform the bylaw review.

4.3       In order to do this, staff have been conducting research and consulting with Community Boards on how to better manage suburban parking. This research and consultation has identified some key parking issues. Council could consider improving the way these issues are managed. Staff are proposing to consult with key stakeholders on the issues and options in the attached draft discussion document.

4.4       It is anticipated that the suburban parking policy will be developed following the feedback from key stakeholders. It is proposed that the draft policy will be consulted on in 2017.

 

5.   Context/Background

 

5.1       Last year the Council worked with the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to develop the Central City Parking Plan. Now that the Central City Parking Plan is complete it is time to consider parking management in the rest of the city. In recent months (on 9 December 2015 and 7 April 2016) staff have held briefings with the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on how the Council could better manage the car parking it provides in suburban Christchurch.

5.2       Staff have done research and had discussions with all Community Board chairs and attended Community Board meetings as requested.  Staff have also talked to disability advisory groups and UDS transport staff and through all of these discussion have identified key suburban parking issues. The next step is to have a conversation with key stakeholders in the community on these issues and get their views on possible solutions regarding how the Council could best respond to these issues.

5.3       It is proposed that in June 2016 the Council will distribute the attached discussion document along with a survey, to stakeholders (including business and resident associations).

5.4       Feedback will inform the development of a draft policy for suburban parking and the upcoming review of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008.

5.5       The draft policy and any proposed changes to the bylaw will require further consultation. This is proposed for early 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Suburban Car Parking Draft Discussion Document

142

b  

Suburban Car Parking Appendix -Advantages and Disadvantages

159

 

 

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

David Falconer

Senior Policy Planner - Transport

Approved By

Rae-Anne Kurucz

Richard Osborne

Brendan Anstiss

Team Leader Transport

Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

14.    Zone Committee Update Report

Reference:

16/550814

Contact:

Diane Shelander

diane.shelander@ccc.govt.nz

941 8304

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee with an update report from the Christchurch-West Melton, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn-Waihora water management zone committees.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Zone Committees' report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The ITE Committee received an update report from the three zone committees at its April 2016 meeting, and annual reports from each of the zone committees at their May 2016 meeting.

3.2       The ITE Committee has asked for a monthly update from the zone committees.  The attached report (Attachment A) is the latest update from the zone committees.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Updates Zone Committees - ITE committee 2 June 2016

168

 

 

Signatories

Author

Diane Shelander

Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont

Brendan Anstiss

Head of Strategic Policy

General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

15.    Transport Unit - Monthly Report

Reference:

16/554423

Contact:

Chris Gregory

chris.gregory@ccc.govt.nz

941 8608

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to receive the report from the Transport Unit.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 number of people affected or with an interest.

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation is not required as this is an update report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee receive the Transport Unit Monthly Report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Network performance is relatively stable but still with a high level of impact from earthquake repairs to infrastructure and from new developments.

4.2       The majority of the capital programme is well underway but with a relatively high level of construction required in the last three months of the year.

4.3       A number of projects have been delayed by the consultation process or consenting process. These projects have been re-phased as part of the 2016 draft Annual Plan. This particularly applies to the Major Cycleway Programme, Marshlands Road Bridge and the Port Hills Geotechnical Contracts.

4.4       A panel contract for design of Major Cycleways has been awarded to two teams of consultants and a similar contract is out to market for the construction element. This will enable streamlining and integrated delivery of sections of the various routes by allocating parcels to known contractors and design consultants early in the programme.

4.5       The contract for the Zone 3B Risk Mitigation for Sumner Road is currently out to tender for award in May. This will allow the $40M remediation project to proceed early in the new financial year.

4.6       Some routine maintenance issues with roadside mowing and street cleaning are arising, particularly in the Eastern suburbs, as the SCIRT rebuild comes to an end and there is a transition to day to day activities. These are being addressed with the maintenance contractors.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The monthly report is intended to provide committee members with:

·   Update on key network performance statistics, and

·   Update on the status of the major projects in the transport capital programme, and

·   Update of maintenance activities, and

·   Schedules of planned renewals in the carriageway and footpath activities.

5.2       In future as more detail is finalised around three year rolling programmes and outputs from associated condition assessments these will be provided for information.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Transport Unit Monthly Report to Infrastructure, Transport & Environment Committee

173

 

 

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

Chris Gregory

Head of Transport

Approved By

Peter Ryan

David Adamson

Head of Performance Management

General Manager City Services

  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

16.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

02 June 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

17

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 5 May 2016

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.