Te Hapori o Ōhinehou raua ko Te Ahu Pātiki

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 15 June 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Lyttelton Service Centre,
15 London Street, Lyttelton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Paula Smith

Christine Wilson

Denis Aldridge

Ann  Jolliffe

Adrian Te Patu

Andrew Turner

 

 

9 June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@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

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Objectives

for the 2013 – 2016 Triennium

 

These objectives are agreed by members of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board. They are intended to guide decision-making and provide a basis for the Board's advocacy work in this triennium and beyond. These objectives can only be achieved in partnership with others, including community groups, Ngāi Tahu whanaunui, local businesses (including Lyttelton Port of Christchurch), Christchurch City Council and government agencies.

 

·           The challenges and strengths of increasing diversity in our communities are acknowledged and celebrated.

·           More and different people are involved in their communities.

·           The Board maintains and increases its leadership role as advocate for our communities.

·           Local partnership in earthquake recovery, regeneration and ongoing community development.

·           The community understands and has confidence in the Board's decision-making.

·           The relationship between the community and the port, including Lyttelton Port Company, is improved.

·           Protection, retention and restoration of natural and cultural heritage.

·           Avoid or mitigate negative effects of port traffic on community well-being.

·           Direct public access to the inner harbour and waterfront from Lyttelton town centre.

·           Strong physical and social links between harbour-side communities are maintained and enhanced.

·           Lyttelton town centre is rebuilt in a way which expresses its unique character.

·           All rebuild activity promotes social and economic vibrancy and / or wellbeing.

·           Lyttelton Urban Design Advisory Committee is established and operating effectively.

·           Arts and creative activities are supported and celebrated.

·           Lyttelton Harbour catchment water quality is steadily improving.

·           Significant progress on the Head-to-Head Walkway.

·           Landscapes are protected and sustainably managed.

·           Plans for Diamond Harbour town centre redevelopment are agreed upon and implemented.

·           Lyttelton Harbour is a destination of choice for visitors from Christchurch and beyond.

·           Lyttelton’s status as preferred port of call for cruise ships visiting Canterbury is restored.

·           Residents feel safe from natural hazards in all harbour communities.

·           There is access to suitable housing for all those who wish to live here.

·           Facilities for community activities, including recreation and sport, are repaired, rebuilt, maintained and well-used by all residents.

·           For local government and electoral purposes, Banks Peninsula remains intact and has effective representation, reflecting the Peninsula’s inherent integrity and particular interests.

 

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Proposed for Adoption:16 December 2015

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Karakia Timatanga.............................................................................................................................. 4 

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

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

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

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

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

B       6.       Correspondence - Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton................................ 9

B       7.       Staff Briefings - Update from Customer Services Unit............................................... 13

B       8.       Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 1 June 2016......................................................................................................................................... 15

C       9.       Norwich Quay Bus Stop and Tunnel Control Parking associated with NZTA Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project........................................................... 23

C       10.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Youth Development Fund - David Christopher Buchanan... 39

C       11.     Boat Security and Safety Association  - Secretarial Support Services...................... 41

C       12.     Replanting Vegetation on Cass Bay Reserves............................................................. 45

B       13.     Committee Report - Lyttelton Recreation Ground Reserve Management Committee Draft Minutes - 16 May 2016........................................................................................ 49

B       14.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report.............................................. 53

B       15.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 65

B       16.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 65

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

Karakia Timatanga 

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 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 1 June 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton

 

Julia Holden will speak regarding a proposed art project and event in Lyttelton, Lyttelton Redux. Refer to correspondence in the agenda of this meeting for additional details.

 

4.2

Update on Proposed Project to Improve Safety of Recreational Boat Users at Naval Point Slipways

 

James Ensor of the Boat Security and Safety Association will speak regarding an update on the Association’s proposed project to improve safety of recreational boat users of Naval Point slipways.

 

4.3

Consent Issues Regarding Preferred New Site for Busy C's Preschool

 

Caro Davidson of Busy C’s Preschool will speak regarding consent issues with the preferred new site for the Preschool, which is currently operating out of the Lyttelton West School site.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

 

Te Hapori o Ōhinehou raua ko Te Ahu Pātiki

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 1 June 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Lyttelton Service Centre,
15 London Street, Lyttelton

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Paula Smith

Christine Wilson

Denis Aldridge

Ann  Jolliffe

Andrew Turner

 

 

31 May 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@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

 

 

Karakia Timatanga: Member Smith. 

In Attendance:

Paula Smith (Chairperson), Christine Wilson (Deputy Chairperson), Denis Aldridge, Ann Jolliffe, and Andrew Turner.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies

 

Community Board Resolved LMCB/2016/00080

It was resolved on the motion of Member Smith, seconded by Member Aldridge that the apology from Member Te Patu be accepted.

Member Smith/Member Aldridge                                                                                                                       Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LMCB/2016/00081

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 18 May 2016 be confirmed.

Member Turner/Member Aldridge                                                                                                                     Carried

 

4.   Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee

 

Community Board Resolved LMCB/2016/00082

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

  1. Hold a meeting of the Board’s Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee on Wednesday 17 August 2016 from 1pm-2pm at the Lyttelton Service Centre, 15 London Street, Lyttelton.

Member Jolliffe/Member Wilson                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Member Smith. 

Meeting concluded at 9.36am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 15th DAY OF JUNE 2016.

 

Paula Smith

Chairperson

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence - Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton

Reference:

16/642527

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Julia Holden

Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 15 June 2016 from Julia Holden regarding a proposed art project and event in Lyttelton.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton - Cover Letter

10

b  

Proposed Art Project and Event in Lyttelton - Outline

11

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

7         Staff Briefings - Update from Customer Services Unit

Reference:

16/642259

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenters

Unit/Organisation

Update from Customer Services Unit -

 

Citizen Hub Strategy,

Technology Replacement,

Snap Send Solve and

Re-engineering for Service Requests

Sarah Numan, Head of Customer Services Unit

 

Dana Burnett, IT Service Manager – Digital Channel and Customer

 

Teresa McCallum, Programme Manager COMMIT

Customer Services Unit

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Note the information during the Staff Briefing on the Customer Services Unit.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

8.        Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 1 June 2016

Reference:

16/644025

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee held a meeting on 1 June 2016 to formulate feedback on the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines. The Submissions Committee is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Board for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board receive the Minutes from the Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee meeting held 1 June 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee - 1 June 2016

16

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter

Community Board Advisor

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

 

Te Hapori o Ōhinehou rāua ko te Ahu Pātiki

Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 1 June 2016

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Lyttelton Service Centre,
15 London Street, Lyttelton

 

 

Present

Members

Denis Aldridge

Ann Jolliffe

Paula Smith

Andrew Turner

Christine Wilson

 

 

31 May 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

In Attendance:

Denis Aldridge, Ann Jolliffe, Paula Smith, Andrew Turner and Christine Wilson.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1pm and resumed at 2.06pm.

1.   Election of Chairperson

Part C

 

It was resolved  that Member Smith be appointed Chairperson of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee .

 

Member Aldridge/Member Jolliffe                                                                                                                    Carried

 

2.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies

 

Committee Resolved LMSC/2016/00004

It was resolved on the motion of Member Aldridge, seconded by Member Jolliffe that the apology from Member Turner for early departure be accepted. Member Turner was absent for part of Clause 4 – Feedback on Draft Dampier Bay Design Guide.

Member Aldridge/Member Jolliffe                                                                                                                     Carried

3.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

4.   Feedback on Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines

 

At this meeting, the Submissions Committee formulated feedback on behalf of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board on the Lyttelton Port Company’s Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines. The feedback is attached.

 

Committee Resolved LMSC/2016/00005

That the Committee:

1.    Approve the feedback on the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines.

2.    Decide that the feedback on the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines be submitted to Lyttelton Port Company by the Committee Chairperson.

Member Smith/Member Wilson                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 2.18pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2016.

 


 

ATTACHMENT TO CLAUSE 4

TO:

Lyttelton Port Company

 

Email:  feedback@lpc.co.nz

              jared.pettersson@lpc.co.nz

 

FEEDBACK ON:

Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines / He Aratohu Hoahoa

 

FEEDBACK BY:

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

 

CONTACT:

 

 

 

Lyttelton Service Centre

PO Box 73027

CHRISTCHURCH 8154

 

Email: amy.hart@ccc.govt.nz

 

DATE:

2 June 2016

 

Te Hapori o Ohinehou Raua ko ahu Patiki / Lyttelton Mt Herbert Community Board represents the communities around Lyttelton Harbour and Port Levy. The Board's statutory role is, “to represent, and act as an advocate for, the interests of its community” (Local Government Act 2002, section 52). In this capacity the Board provides feedback on the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Question 1 – Overall, do you support the direction of the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines?

 

Yes, overall the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board (the Board) supports the direction of the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines (Draft Guidelines).

 

Question 2 – What do you like best in the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines?

 

(a)       The Board supports objectives articulated in Section 5.0 - Design Objectives / Ka Whaika, in particular the two following objectives regarding heritage:

·    Protect and maintain historic heritage features including archaeological elements as part of the design and story-telling at the site;

·    Recognise the social, industrial, architectural, and maritime significance of the Port.

 

(b)       The Board supports Section 3.0 - History and Context / Te Horopaki.

 

(c)       The Board supports the use of both English and Māori languages throughout the Draft Guidelines.

 

Question 3 – What are the aspects of the Draft Dampier Bay Design Guidelines you would like changed?

 

(a)       In Section 5.0 - Design Objectives / Ka Whaika, the Board supports the following two objectives regarding accessibility and quality with amendments:

·    Provide a lively, safe and accessible destination for people of all ages and physical abilities, as far as practicable;

·    Implement Crime Prevention through Enviromental Design (CPTED), Injury Prevention through Environmental Design (IPTED), and universal access design principles, where practicable

 

            

            

             The Board's view is that these objectives are not “nice-to-haves”. As achieving universally accessible and safe outcomes often costs more, including references to practicability enables design decisions to be made which do not result in the outcomes intended. The Board requests that the two objectives be amended as above to give an unambiguous signal to developers regarding what is expected.

 

(b)       While the Board is pleased to see reference to protecting and maintaining heritage in the overarching objectives, the Board cannot see where this intent is articulated in any of the sub-chapters of the Draft Guidelines themselves.

 

             This seems to be at odds with the purpose of the Guidelines as stated in the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan, which is to “address how the development of new buildings and public spaces will maintain and enhance the historic, maritime and industrial character of Lyttelton Port.”

 

             The Board supports inclusion of a sub-chapter of the Guidelines, Heritage and Context, which expresses the need to make the most of what heritage remains by using and incorporating existing heritage fabric into new development and only destroying or demolishing tangible evidence of the past when there is no alternative.

 

Question 4 – Please indicate how much you support the ‘principles’ included in the Guide

 

(a)       The Board strongly supports design principles which create an expectation to “respond to existing local character.”

            

             Why? New development at Dampier Bay would be a good fit with the wider Lyttelton townscape.

 

(b)       The Board strongly supports “quality access and connections,” in particular good access and connections to the public transport network.

 

             The Board supports quality pedestrian connections between Dampier Bay and the rest of Lyttelton, and opposes any temporary or permanent measures which are not universally accessible, safe and high amenity. In particular, the Board opposes use of the existing steps as the interim connection to and from Norwich Quay. The Board also notes that safety improvements will need to be considered regarding the proposed pedestrian link to Godley Quay, as there is no footpath on the Dampier Bay side of Godley Quay.

 

             The Board suggests consideration should be given to providing public access from the sea by incorporating a short term mooring area for harbour residents arriving and departing by their own vessels.

            

             Why? Optimising accessibility maximises the number of people passing through Dampier Bay and activates the place.

 

(c)       The Board strongly supports “integrated car parking,” particularly to meet the needs of users of the public transport network and users of Black Cat's services and other commercial operators. The Board notes that large areas of parked cars are (or were until recently) a familiar sight in Lyttelton as imported cars are unloaded and stored on the waterfront. This is a familiar and acceptable part of the Lyttelton vernacular.

 

(d)       The Board supports “positive relationships between buildings and spaces.”

            

             Why? “Positive relationships” between buildings and publicly accessible open spaces help to activate and enliven the area and will make places safer.

 

(e)       The Board supports a design principle which requires developers to “respond to local building forms and scale.”

            

             Why? Lyttelton evolved before there were planning rules (or design guidelines!). Existing commercial and industrial parts of Lyttelton are characterised by building diversity with unexpected juxtaposition of buildings of different scale, form and even uses. This eclecticism contributes significantly to the existing character of Lyttelton.

 

(f)        The Board supports the “incorporation of local materials and colours.”

            

             Why? Use of local materials will result in a built environmental outcome which sits comfortably within its receiving environment.

 

(g)       The Board is neutral about the principle to “provide a range of quality public spaces.”

            

             Why? The most important publicly accessible space at Dampier Bay will be the waterfront promenade. This is the public space which needs to be top quality. The Board supports a promenade width of 8 metres, with at least 4 metres of usable space.

 

             The spaces between the buildings and to the rear could be relatively industrial. There may be value in seeking some contrast in quality between the promenade and other spaces in the area to highlight the primacy of the waterfront promenade.

 

(h)       The Board strongly supports “incorporating a quality public promenade.”

            

             Why? For many in the Lyttelton community the main benefit of development at Dampier Bay will be provision of an alternative off-road pedestrian and skateboard route between the town centre and recreation areas at Naval Point. Dampier Bay is the only place (apart from the Diamond Harbour ferry berth) where it is possible for the public to access the inner harbour. The promenade will make the most of this connection with the water.

 

(i)        The Board is neutral about the “incorporation of coastal planting.”

            

             Why? Formally arranged street trees are not a feature of the existing Lyttelton townscape, nor is landscaping a feature of other parts of the inner harbour waterfront. The Board is unconvinced that decorative landscaping will “maintain and enhance the historic maritime and industrial character,” which is the over-riding objective of the Draft Guidelines. However if planting is to be a feature of development then coastal natives would be most appropriate.

 

(j)        The Board neither supports nor opposes the “creation of a distinctive street and spaces with a local look and feel.”

            

             Why? The back road through Dampier Bay will contribute positively overall to accessibility at the site provided it is designed to connect with the existing road network in ways which do not create issues or problems for residents, or for users of the public transport network. Care may be needed to ensure the back road functions mainly as a slow service lane for the businesses at Dampier Bay and does not become a short cut between Norwich Quay and Naval Point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Question 5 – General comments

 

The Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan states, “Lyttelton Port Company Ltd intends that the preparation of the design guidance will be a collaborative process, including members of the community, local Rūnanga and Christchurch City Council.”

 

While the Board acknowledges that Lyttelton Port Company has sought public input, and is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guidelines, the Board does not consider the process used to develop the Guidelines to be collaborative.

 

The Board suggests consideration should be given to establishing a robust process for regular and ongoing collaboration with both community and mana whenua as Dampier Bay develops.

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. The Board would be happy to discuss any of the points raised with Lyttelton Port Company.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Paula Smith

Chairperson, Te Hapori o Ōhinehou raua ko Ahu Pātiki/Lyttelton Mt Herbert Community Boa


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

9.        Norwich Quay Bus Stop and Tunnel Control Parking associated with NZTA Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project

Reference:

16/436300

Contact:

 Peter Rodgers

peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941-6303

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board to approve the relocation of a bus stop and the extension of the existing tunnel control parking area on Norwich Quay (State Highway 74), as shown in Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of a New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Norwich Quay commencing at its intersection with Sutton Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

2.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the southern side of Norwich Quay commencing at its intersection with Sutton Quay and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

3.         Approve that a bus stop be created on the southern side of Norwich Quay commencing at a point 7 metres east its intersection with Sutton Quay and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

4.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to Tunnel Control Authorised Vehicles Only on the southern side of Norwich Quay commencing at a point 10 metres west its intersection with Sutton Quay and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 42 metres.

5.         Approve that the above resolutions come into effect when the construction of the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project is completed.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.37 Promote modal shift: Contribute to increasing the percentage share of public transport trips .

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve road safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Bus Stop relocation outside 25 Norwich Quay (Fisherman's Wharf) (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Bus Stop relocation east of the pedestrian crossing.

·     Option 3 - Do Nothing (Bus stop remains in its current location).

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Safer location for pedestrians to cross and wait for a bus than the do nothing option.

·     Improved operational efficiency for buses.

·     Separates bus passengers from the noise and fumes from vehicles waiting in the tunnel control parking area.

·     Improved operation and safety of the tunnel control parking area.

·     Separating the bus stop and tunnel control parking area creates a clear line of sight between bus drivers and waiting bus passengers at the new bus stop location.

·     Provides additional footpath space at the relocated bus stop, providing room for passenger transport infrastructure.

·     Public support for this option indicated by surveys and community workshops led by NZTA.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of on-street parking spaces outside 25 Norwich Quay (Fisherman's Wharf).

·     Residents at the west end of Lyttelton have to walk further (approximately 100m) to reach the bus stop and cross Sutton Quay.  A central island is part of the NZTA project, to assist pedestrians in safely crossing the Sutton Quay intersection.

·     Relocating the bus stop further east reduces the bus stop separation between the two inbound (towards Christchurch city) Norwich Quay bus stops, from 280m apart to 180m.  A short spacing between bus stops can impact speed and reliability of the bus service.

·     The proposed bus stop type is a half-indented bus bay with an unrestricted lead-out onto the live, westbound traffic lane.  The following are some problems that may be encountered for buses and passengers using a bus bay. 

         It can be difficult for the bus to merge back into the mainstream of traffic.  However, it is considered that this issue is mitigated by the unrestricted lead-out onto the live traffic lane.  Use of the signalised pedestrian crossing will also recreate a gap in the traffic to allow the bus to exit the bus stop.

         Bus bays are prone to attract inconsiderate parking or loading, which can prevent the bus from reaching the kerbside, forcing passengers to board or alight from the road. 

         The design of many existing bus bays is considered unsatisfactory, resulting in poor accessibility for passengers.  The consultant who prepared the bus stop layout on behalf of the NZTA, has undertaken vehicle tracking movements using a 14.5 metre long rigid, three axle bus.   This vehicle is about 1.0 metres longer than the longest buses currently operated by Environment Canterbury's bus fleet providers.  The tracking indicates that the rear of the vehicle does not fully align with the kerbline.  However, it is likely that the longest vehicle (13.5 metres) in the Environment Canterbury bus fleet, would be able to park parallel to the kerb.

         Restricted visibility from Sutton Quay when the bus is present to pick up and set down passengers.  Visibility will be restricted for short periods of time, when the bus has stopped to collect or drop-off passengers.  The activity of collecting or dropping off passengers generally takes only a number of seconds to complete.  Occupancy of the bus bay will only occur when the driver has been signalled to stop by a passenger either from within bus or on-street.  Thereby the space is clear of obstructions for the majority of the day.  This overview of how a bus stop works is supported by the passenger boarding data of the existing bus stop.  To further mitigate the restricted visibility from Sutton Quay, the proposed bus stop is not intended to operate as a layover or timing point.  The intersection of Sutton Quay with Norwich Quay is controlled by a Stop sign.  This is of assistance in managing hazards associated with the restricted visibility when a bus is stationary within the bus stop.  At a Stop sign controlled intersection, drivers have to come to a complete stop, and only turn when it is safe.

 

5.   Context/Background

Norwich Quay Pedestrian Crossing

5.1       The Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project is led and funded by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), and contributes to the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan (LPRP) in partnership with Christchurch City Council (CCC), the Lyttelton Port Company (LPC), and Environment Canterbury (ECan).

5.2       NZTA investigated pedestrian improvements providing access linking the west end of Lyttelton and the Dampier Bay development with bus stops and the town centre. The aim was to improve pedestrian safety while maintaining road freight efficiency to and from the Port of Lyttelton.

5.3       A working group including NZTA, CCC, LPC, ECan and community representatives, and members of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board investigated various crossing options and looked at three possible locations for a pedestrian crossing. Workshops and bus patronage analysis, traffic count analysis, video recording analysis and pedestrian surveys were conducted for pedestrian movement investigations. The working group has agreed on a 'smart' signalised pedestrian crossing between Sutton Quay and Canterbury Street, as shown in Attachment A.  This preferred option includes relocating the bus stop to outside No. 25 Norwich Quay (Option 1).

5.4       A 'smart' signalised pedestrian crossing uses radar technology to identify pedestrians waiting and vehicles approaching. The signals then allocate green Cross Now/or Go time to ensure pedestrians are safe, while minimising disruption to truck movements on the State Highway. Minimising trucks stopping and starting also reduces emissions.

Bus Stops

5.5       There are two inbound bus stops with bus shelters on Norwich Quay, one located west of Sutton Quay, and one west of the Oxford Street over bridge. According to data supplied by ECan, bus services mainly drop passengers off at the bus stops on Dublin Street, Winchester Street and Oxford Street, and pick passengers up at the two bus stops on Norwich Quay. Each of the Norwich Quay bus stops has approximately 100 passengers boarding per day, and is slightly busier on weekends, and serve the eastern and western catchment areas of Lyttelton.

5.6       It is proposed to relocate the bus stop currently west of Sutton Quay to a position east of Sutton Quay, at the site of the proposed pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians from the north side of Norwich Quay will have safe access provided by the pedestrian crossing project. The provision of a bus shelter is subject to a separate process.

5.7       The relocation of the bus stop currently west of Sutton Quay provides the opportunity to increase the size of the adjoining tunnel control parking area, which will improve the operation and safety of this space.

5.8       Cycling or walking through the Lyttelton Tunnel is not permitted for commuters living in Lyttelton so the bus service is a vital element to provide accessible alternative modes of transport for Lyttelton residents.

5.9       The Lyttelton/ Mt Herbert Community Board has also requested that staff investigate relocating the eastern bus stop and shelter further to the east, closer to Oxford Street. This is being progressed as a separate report.

Relocation of the Western Bus Stop

5.10    The location of the Norwich Quay pedestrian crossing has been driven by safety and operational requirements on Norwich Quay. The success of the Norwich Quay pedestrian crossing is integral with relocating the western bus stop, as this was identified in the survey conducted by NZTA as one of the major reasons that people cross Norwich Quay.

5.11    The survey also asked how far people would be willing to divert from their desired route to use the new pedestrian crossing with the relocated bus stop, with around 90% of people saying they would because of the safer option.

Consultation

5.12    Consultation for this project was prepared and led by NZTA.  The project information leaflets (refer to Attachment B) for the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project and associated works were distributed to residents and property owners in the vicinity, and other stakeholders on 8 April 2016.

5.13    Businesses likely to be directly affected by the loss of parking due to the pedestrian crossing and bus stop relocation were approached directly by NZTA and Christchurch City Council staff.

5.14    Consultation with Fisherman's Wharf indicated support for the pedestrian crossing, but was concerned about the loss of four parking spaces associated with the relocation of the bus stop.

5.15    At present, the kerbside outside Fisherman's Wharf has unofficial angle parking. To be legal angle parking must be formally resolved by the road controlling authority. The New Zealand Transport Agency does not support angle parking on any State Highway unless there is a physical barrier between the parking and the through lane. The current parking arrangement has not been challenged as there has not been an immediate problem. The Transport Agency will achieve the removal of these informal parking spaces as part of the pedestrian crossing project and bus stop relocation.

5.16    As a result of the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project and bus stop relocation, there are ten parking spaces lost, four are the informal angle parks outside Fisherman's Wharf. The project working group did not see this as a concern as there is ample parking along Norwich Quay and adjacent streets.


 

6.   Option 1 - Relocate Bus Stop to outside 25 Norwich Quay Fisherman's Wharf (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Relocate the bus stop to outside 25 Norwich Quay, Fisherman's Wharf.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Consultation for this project was prepared and led by NZTA.  The project information leaflets (refer to Attachment B) for the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project and associated works were distributed to residents and property owners in the vicinity, and other stakeholders on 8 April 2016.

6.5       The Lyttelton Community, particularly bus users living in the west end of Lyttelton, are specifically affected by this option due to the relocation of the bus stop further away to the east.

6.6       90% of bus passengers surveyed by NZTA supported relocating the bus stop with the new pedestrian crossing outside 25 Norwich Quay. Reasons for this included better access to the pedestrian crossing, a safer and shorter crossing option, separated from fumes and noise of vehicles utilising the tunnel control parking area, and better visibility of arriving buses.

6.7       The Fisherman's Wharf building is owned by the Lyttelton Port Company who support the pedestrian crossing and bus stop relocation. The objection has come from their tenants who operate the Fisherman's Wharf restaurant and are specifically affected by the loss of on street parking caused by the bus stop relocation and 'No Stopping' restrictions associated with the pedestrian crossing. 

6.8       Fisherman's Wharf tenant opposes this option due to the loss of parking spaces directly adjacent.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, and the Lyttelton Port Recovery Plan which the Christchurch City Council is partner to.

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - the cost of the bus stop relocation, signage and line marking changes will be met by NZTA as part of their Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs will be covered under existing NZTA and CCC maintenance budgets and the effect will be negligible on the overall asset.

6.12    Funding source - The cost of the bus stop relocation and line marking changes will be met by NZTA as part of their Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project. The cost of the tunnel control parking area signage is to be funded from the Traffic Operations Signs- Parking & Non Regulatory operational budget.

Legal Implications

6.13    The Council has delegated authority from the NZTA to install parking restrictions on State Highway, excluding no stopping restrictions.  The NZTA is responsible for the no stopping restrictions on State Highways.

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There are no known risks to this option.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.19    Implementation timeframe - this will be implemented alongside the construction of the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Improvement Project, which is intended to begin construction in late 2016 subject to approvals.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Safer location for pedestrians to cross and wait for a bus than the status quo.

·   Improved operational efficiency for buses.

·   Separates bus passengers from the noise and fumes from vehicles waiting in the tunnel control parking area.

·   Improved operation and safety operations of the tunnel control parking area.

·   Separating the bus stop and tunnel control parking area creates a clear line of sight between bus drivers and waiting bus passengers at the new bus stop location.

·   Provides additional footpath space at the relocated bus stop, providing room for passenger transport infrastructure.

·   Public support for this bus stop option indicated by NZTA led surveys and community workshops.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of on-street parking spaces outside 25 Norwich Quay (Fisherman's Wharf).

·     Residents at the west end of Lyttelton have to walk further (approximately 100m) to reach the bus stop and cross Sutton Quay.  A central island is part of the NZTA project, to assist pedestrians in safely crossing the Sutton Quay intersection.

·     Relocating the bus stop further east reduces the bus stop separation between the two inbound (towards Christchurch city) Norwich Quay bus stops, from 280m apart to 180m.  A short spacing between bus stops can impact speed and reliability of the bus service.

·     The proposed bus stop type is a half-indented bus bay with an unrestricted lead-out onto the live, westbound traffic lane.  The following are some problems that may be encountered for buses and passengers using a bus bay. 

         It can be difficult for the bus to merge back into the mainstream of traffic.  However, it is considered that this issue is mitigated by the unrestricted lead-out onto the live traffic lane.  Use of the signalised pedestrian crossing will also recreate a gap in the traffic to allow the bus to exit the bus stop.

         Bus bays are prone to attract inconsiderate parking or loading, which can prevent the bus from reaching the kerbside, forcing passengers to board or alight from the road. 

         The design of many existing bus bays is considered unsatisfactory, resulting in poor accessibility for passengers.  The consultant who prepared the bus stop layout on behalf of the NZTA, have undertaken vehicle tracking movements using a 14.5 meter long rigid, three axle bus.   This vehicle is about 1.0 metres longer than the longest buses currently operated by Environment Canterbury's bus fleet providers.  The tracking indicates that the rear of the vehicle does not fully align with the kerbline.  However, it is likely that the longest vehicle (13.5 metres) in the Environment Canterbury bus fleet, would be able to park parallel to the kerb.

         Restricted visibility from Sutton Quay when the bus is present to pick up and set down passengers.  Visibility will be restricted for short periods of time, when the bus has stopped to collect or drop-off passengers.  The activity of collecting or dropping off passengers generally takes only a number of seconds to complete.  Occupancy of the bus bay will only occur when the driver has been signalled to stop by a passenger either from within bus or on-street.  Thereby the space is clear of obstructions for the majority of the day.  This overview of how a bus stop works is supported by the passenger boarding data of the existing bus stop.  To further mitigate the restricted visibility from Sutton Quay, the proposed bus stop is not intended to operate as a layover or timing point.  The intersection of Sutton Quay with Norwich Quay is controlled by a Stop sign.  This is of assistance in managing hazards associated with the restricted visibility when a bus is stationary within the bus stop.  At a Stop sign controlled intersection, drivers have to come to a complete stop, and only turn when it is safe.

7.   Option 2 - Relocate Bus Stop east of the Pedestrian Crossing

Option Description

7.1       Fisherman's Wharf have suggested that the bus stop could be relocated east of the pedestrian crossing. This is not the preferred option because it introduces major safety issues and operational inefficiencies that Option 1 does not have.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See Section 6.4-6.8.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it does not support a safe transport system.

7.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not assist in promoting modal shift to passenger transport, protect vulnerable road users, or improve road safety.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus stop and Norwich Quay remains difficult to access for pedestrians, does not separate the bus stop and tunnel control parking area.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Costs will be met by NZTA as part of their Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Maintenance costs will be covered under existing maintenance budgets and the effect will be negligible on the overall asset.

7.8       Funding source - Cost will be met by NZTA as part of their Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project.

Legal Implications

7.9       See Section 6.13- 6.16.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Locating the bus stop on the approach to the signalised crossing means the bus must re-join the main traffic stream and needs to check for both pedestrians crossing ahead of the bus and traffic coming from behind the bus.

7.11    The road width is narrower at this location making access in and out of the bus stop difficult, and likely to impede other vehicles along Norwich Quay and restrict cycle access.

7.12    The footpath width on the eastern side of the pedestrian crossing are considerably smaller and can create safety concerns for passengers waiting at and walking around a bus shelter.

7.13    It is best practice to locate a bus stop on the departure side of a signalised intersection to allow buses to take advantage of the gaps in traffic created by the traffic signals. Option 2 forces buses to re-join the main traffic flow prior to the signalised crossing and removes any potential gain in bus service operational efficiency.

7.14    Locating the bus stop on the east side of the pedestrian crossing reduces the distance between bus stops on Norwich Quay to approximately 140 metres. This reduces the optimal bus access coverage for residents of the west end of Lyttelton, and means residents of have further to walk to the bus stops from their current desired route with no noticeable advantage for eastern/central Lyttelton Residents. It also means that buses have to stop at two bus stops in close proximity, which can increase travel times due to the need for buses to wait for gaps in traffic to re-join the traffic flow.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

7.16    Implementation timeframe - This would be implemented alongside construction of the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project, which is intended to begin construction in late 2016 subject to approvals- see Sam.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Parking spaces remain outside 25 Norwich Quay.

·   Safer and improved operations of the tunnel control parking area.

·   Visibility from Sutton Quay is not restricted.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Further loss of parallel parking spaces in the general area further to the east on Norwich Quay.

·   The remaining parking spaces result in maintaining the existing narrow footpath.

·   Further distance for bus passengers from the west end of Lyttelton.

·   Safety concerns for pedestrians due to buses exiting the bus stop.

·   Operational difficulties for bus drivers.

8.   Option 3 - Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       Do nothing to the existing bus stop, but NZTA to still construct the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is consistent with Section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance reflect this.

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       See Section 6.4- 6.8.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not assist in promoting modal shift to passenger transport, protect vulnerable road users, or improve road safety.

8.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus stop and Norwich Quay remain difficult to access for pedestrians, does not separate the bus stop and tunnel control parking area.

8.5.3   Amendment necessary - Not applicable.

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - None.

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

8.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Allowing the bus stop to remain in its present location will compromise safety by encouraging pedestrians to cross Norwich Quay in an unsafe location. The pedestrian survey identified that some people cross from Dublin Street to the existing bus stop location, and do so at quite dangerous locations. The purpose of the Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project is to improve pedestrian safety, and the temptation to cross directly to the bus stop will undermine the success of the proposed crossing.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable as this option maintains the status quo.

8.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified. It would only maintain the status quo and does not align with the safer pedestrian crossing on Norwich Quay.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Encourages pedestrians to cross Norwich Quay in an unsafe location, where the road is wider and heavy vehicles are often turning into and out of Sutton Quay (pedestrian survey confirms that people are unlikely to walk more than 200 meters to new pedestrian crossing and back to the existing bus stop).

·   Unpleasant location for bus passengers to wait, next to idling vehicles at the tunnel control parking area.

·   Bus passengers are often unable to see incoming buses and vice versa.

·   Impact to the safe and efficient operation of the bus network as buses need to cross traffic lanes to turn right into the Lyttelton Tunnel.

·   Impacts the safe and efficient operation of the freight network as it forces heavy vehicles to potentially share the road space with pedestrians crossing the road.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Norwich Quay Bus Stop and Tunnel Control Parking associated with NZTA Norwich Quay Pedestrian Safety Improvement Project

35

b  

NZTA Norwich Quay Project Information Leaflet to the Public

36

 

 

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

Andrew Hensley

Peter Rodgers

Brenda  O'Donoghue

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Consultant

Passenger Transport Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

10.    Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Youth Development Fund - David Christopher Buchanan

Reference:

16/624234

Contact:

Philipa Hay

Philipa.hay@ccc.govt.nz

941 5604

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board to consider one application received for the Board's 2015/16 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $2,793 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from David Christopher Buchanan.

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 and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $300 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to David Christopher Buchanan towards the (International Optimist Dinghy Association) IODA World Championship in Portugal.

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – David Christopher Buchanan

4.1       David is an 11 year old who attends Diamond Harbour Primary School. Although he is younger than the eligibility criteria for this fund, the community board may still consider this application on its merits and decide to allocate from their Discretionary Response Fund.

4.2       David has been dinghy racing since he was seven years old and has contested three Open Class National Regattas. Most recently, he represented Charteris Bay Yacht Club at the 2016 New Zealand Open Optimist Dinghy Championships held at Kohimarama in Easter this year, placing eighth for this event (third for New Zealand), and giving him a fourth placing over all for New Zealand. 

4.3       Based on his results, David has been selected to represent New Zealand at the International Optimist Dinghy Association (IODA) World Championship regatta in Vilamoura, Portugal from 24 June to 4 July 2016. He is one in a team of five, is competing against 15 year olds, and is the second Canterbury and fourth South Island sailor to have ever been placed in a New Zealand Optimist World’s team. 

4.4       David says his “goal has always been to make it into the NZ Optimist Worlds team…a huge achievement… in NZ (and) in over 50 countries world-wide.  This challenge…has now been realised…”

4.5       In addition to sailing, David’s interests include playing piano, soccer, swimming, athletics and cycling. 

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for David Buchanan:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares (training in Auckland)

1,040

Airfares (International)

2,405

Entry, boat hire, accommodation

3,520

Training camp fees

1,000

Uniform, insurance

850

Coaching

4,100

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$12,915

 

This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.  Fundraising activities for this event have included three other grants requests, a club fundraising dinner, on-line auction and coaching.

 

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

Philipa Hay

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford

Manager Community Governance - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

11.    Boat Security and Safety Association  - Secretarial Support Services

Reference:

16/622157

Contact:

Andrea Wild

Andrea.wild@cc.govt.nz

941 5605

 

 

Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

55463

Boat Security and Safety Association

Secretarial Support Services

$581

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Boat Security and Safety Association.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant to Boat Security and Safety Association for $581 towards secretarial support services.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$27,500

$24,707

$2,793

$2,212

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Decision Matrix 55463

43

 

 

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

Andrea Wild

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford

Manager Community Governance - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

12.    Replanting Vegetation on Cass Bay Reserves

Reference:

16/624679

Contact:

Philipa Hay

Philipa.hay@ccc.govt.nz

941 5604

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

55043

Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee

Replanting Vegetation on Cass Bay Reserves

$1,810

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee.

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 and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $1,810 for Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee towards Replanting vegetation on Cass Bay reserves.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$27,500

$24,707

$2,793

$983

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Replanting Vegetation on Cass Bay Reserves

47

 

 

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

Philipa Hay

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford

Manager Community Governance - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

13     Committee Report - Lyttelton Recreation Ground Reserve Management Committee Draft Minutes - 16 May 2016

Reference:

16/643220

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report presents the draft minutes of the Lyttelton Recreation Ground Reserve Management Committee meeting held on 16 May 2016.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the draft minutes of the Lyttelton Recreation Ground Reserve Management Committee meeting held on 16 May 2016.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Lyttelton Recreation Ground Reserve Management Committee - Draft Minutes - 16 May 2016

50

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter

Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Liz Carter

Community Board Advisor

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

14     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/64232

Contact:

Joan Blatchford

joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5643

 

 

1.   Board Activities

1.1       Community Board Plan Update

1.1.1   The Community Governance Team will update the Board on the Community Board Plan at this meeting.

1.2       Support for Wharf No 4 in Lyttelton as Accessible Public Space

1.2.1   The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board agreed to offer their support to Paula Smith as Chairperson of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board in her efforts to have Wharf No 4 in Lyttelton developed into an accessible public space. A letter of support is attached.

1.3       Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Graffiti Incident Counts

1.3.1   The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert graffiti incident counts for April and May 2016 are attached.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report.

3.   Community Activities

               Diamond Harbour Getting to the Point Action Review

3.1.1   The Community Governance Team helped members of the Diamond Harbour community review the actions in their Getting to the Point document and work up 10 project briefs for actions they want to take forward.

 

         Rainbow Youth Mardi Gras

 

3.2.1   Planning meetings are continuing and the team of volunteers are going to prepare a draft Project Brief setting out what they hope to deliver to share with the Community Board.

 

         Housing Research

 

3.3.1   Two external researchers have expressed an interest in undertaking this research on behalf of the Board and are currently preparing research proposals.

 

         Allandale Hall community meeting

 

3.4.1   A community meeting was held in Governors Bay on 1st June to elicit information from the

wider community about what they would use Allandale Hall for and to hear their ideas about the repair of the building and any modifications they may wish to make (with community funding). This was in addition to the views put forward by key stakeholders (Allandale Reserve Management Committee and Governors Bay Community Association).

 

4.   Council Activities

4.1       Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Facilities Status Update

4.1.1   The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Facilities Status Update as of June 2016 is attached.

5.   Funding Update

5.1       Board Funding - Unallocated Balances

A copy of the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund unallocated balance as at 18 May 2016 is attached for the Board's information.

6.   Upcoming Consultations

6.1       Draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy

The Draft Visitor Strategy gives an overview of the challenges and opportunities facing the sector and provides strategic direction for stakeholders to work together to grow the visitor economy.  Initial feedback from the visitor sector helped form the draft document.

Submissions to the Draft Strategy close on Friday 24 June 2016.  The Board may wish to discuss whether it wishes to make a submission to the Strategy.

The draft Christchurch Visitor Strategy - Setting the Direction document is available online at https://yourvoice.ccc.govt.nz/visitorstrategy.

6.2       Other Consultations
For Board members information:

-      Marine Drive / Ranui Crescent, Diamond Harbour – intersection safety improvement – closes 16 June 2016

-      Christchurch Speed Limit Review Proposals – closes 21 June 2016 (no proposed changes to Banks Peninsula roads)

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Support for Wharf No 4 in Lyttelton as Accessible Public Space

55

b  

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Graffiti Incident Counts

56

c  

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Facilities Status Update

58

d  

Board Discretionary Response Fund - Unallocated Balance

64

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Joan Blatchford

Angela Abel

Liz Beaven

Amy Hart

Philipa Hay

Andrea Wild

Manager Community Governance - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

Community Support Officer

Community Board Advisor

Governance Support Officer

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford

Manager Community Governance - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

15 June 2016

 

 

15.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

16.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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