Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 14 June 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

8 June 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 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.......................................................................................................................... 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   

C       6.       Proposed Road Names - New Subdivision Off Cashmere Road .................................. 9

C       7.       Magdala Place - Street Name and Numbers Change ................................................ 13

C       8.       Kirk Road and Kopara Street Intersection - Proposed No Stopping and P5 Parking Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 17

A       9.       Riccarton Road Bus Priority - Kauri Lodge Access Issues........................................... 23

C       10.     Riccarton Community Centre Concept Design........................................................... 67

C       11.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Youth Development Fund - Application - Rebecca Fairbairn........................................................................................................ 113

C       12.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Youth Development Fund - Application - Phoenix Athletics Club Members............................................................................... 115

C       13.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Applications - Hornby Community Care Trust/Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust/Halswell Hall Incorporated/Halswell School/Springs Community Early Learning Centre.................................................................................................. 117

B       14.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report- June 2016.............................. 127

B       15.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 134

B       16.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 134 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 31 May 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Dr Chrys Horn, on behalf of the Halswell Community Project, will address the Board regarding the work the Halswell Community Project have undertaken over the last year

 

4.2

Nelson Boustead, on behalf of the Christchurch Photographic Society, will address the Board regarding the Riccarton Community Centre Provisional Concept Design. Item 10 of this agenda refers.

 

4.3

Kay Page and Jo Silcock, on behalf of Central Riccarton Residents’ Association, will address the Board regarding the Riccarton Community Centre Provisional Concept Design. Item 10 of this agenda refers.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 31 May 2016

Time:                                    4.02pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

31 May 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00066

That the apology from Vicki Buck for lateness, be accepted.

Member Laloli/Member Broughton                                                                                                                    Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00067

Community Board Decision

That the open minutes of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 17 May 2016, be confirmed.

Member Laloli/Member Bryden                                                                                                                           Carried

 

Member Buck entered the meeting at 04:12 pm.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Senior Sergeant Stills – Hornby Police

Senior Sergeant Peter Stills provided the Board with an update  on current police related activities and operations in the Riccarton/Wigram ward.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Senior Sergeant Stills for his update.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.   


 

 

6.   Staff Briefing

             6.1       Wharenui Recreation Centre Project

                        

Staff from the project team provided the Board with a progress update on the refurbishment of the Wharenui Recration Centre which is on track for completion by the end of June 2016.

 

 

Community Board Decisions under Delegation

Part B

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decided to:

1.         Note the information provided during the Staff Briefing on the Wharenui Recreation Centre project.

 

7.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 - Application - Yaldhurst Rural Residents' Association

 

 

The Board considered a report seeking approval to allocate funding from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association.

 

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00068

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $2,000 from the Riccarton/Wigram Discretionary Response Fund 2015/16 to the Yaldhurst Rural Residents' Association Inc. for the engagement of expert advice for its submission to the Canterbury Aggregates Producers Group's Resource Consent application.

Member M Mora/Member Bryden                                                                                                                    Carried

 

8.   Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

There was no information exchanged at this meeting.

9.   Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

10. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00069

Part C

That at 4.40pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 21 to 22 of the agenda, be adopted.

Member Laloli/Member Bryden                                                                                                                             Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.41pm.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 4.41pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

   


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

6         Proposed Road Names - New Subdivision Off Cashmere Road

Reference:

16/627984

Contact:

Bob Pritchard

bob.pritchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 6844

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider and approve the proposed road names for the first stage of a new subdivision (RMA92026695) off Cashmere Road (refer Attachment).

Origin of Report

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

1.3       The subdivision is for 38 lots and is currently being constructed at 685 Cashmere Road (Halswell end).

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 Recommendation

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to approve the following names:

·        Kitcheners Knoll Road

·        Redmund Spur Road 

·        Hewers Lane

 

4.   Context/Background 

4.1       Kitcheners Knoll is presumed to be the highest hill landform above Quarry Hill. It is where, according to Gordon Ogilvie’s book The Port Hills of Christchurch, Lord Kitchener reviewed the Canterbury Volunteers as part of his inspection of the Lyttelton Harbour defences in February 1910.

4.2       Redmund Spur Road is proposed after a Mr Redmund, who farmed the land over the road from this subdivision. The farm name was known as Redmunds paddock.

4.3       Hewers Lane was proposed to recognise the quarry workers, who “won the rock” from the Quarry face. They were known as the Hewers.

4.4       The names have been checked and accord with Land Information New Zealand requirements as well as the Council’s Road Naming Policy.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Cashmere Road

11

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Bob Pritchard

Lelanie Crous

Subdivisions Officer

Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Higgins

Peter Sparrow

Head of Resource Consents

General Manager Consenting & Compliance

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

7.        Magdala Place - Street Name and Numbers Change

Reference:

16/482775

Contact:

Steve Dejong

Steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

9416428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the name change of the eastern most end of Magdala Place to be known as 'Wigram Road'.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated report arising from the construction of the Wigram Road grade separated extension over Curletts Road known as the 'Magdala Link Project'.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the criteria listed in the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the new section of road between Treffers Road and Annex Road linking Wigram Road to Birmingham Drive, known as the 'Magdala Link Project', be named 'Wigram Road'.

2.         Approve that the properties formerly numbered 6 (Lot 5 DP 49364) and number 8 (Lot 39 DP 49364) Magdala Place, be known as number 6 Wigram Road and number 8 Wigram Road respectively, and that these property address changes take effect from 29 August 2016.

 

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: 16.0.18 Work Programming coordinated with other organisations

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 Approve the road names (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Existing businesses located on this section of Road will be easily located

·     The new road being an extension of the existing Wigram Road logically should become an extension to Wigram Road.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

Wigram Road Extension (Magdala Link) Naming and Magdala Place Numbers and Name Change

5.1       The 'Magdala Link Project' linking Wigram Road to Birmingham Drive including grade separation over Curletts Road, is a major Long Term Plan project due for completion in August 2016.

5.2       Effectively, a new section of road (an extension to the existing Wigram Road) has been constructed commencing from Treffers Road, crossing over Curletts Road then linking to Birmingham Drive at Annex Road. This new section of road is proposed to be named 'Wigram Road'.

5.3       At the eastern end of the new section of 'Wigram Road', the new road alignment is constructed over the alignment of the old entrance of Magdala Place. This affects two properties; number 6 and number 8 Magdala Place; these properties will no longer have access off Magdala Place.

5.4       Numbers 6 and 8 Magdala Place will now be accessed from the new section of 'Wigram Road' and it is therefore proposed that these two properties be known as numbers 6 and 8 Wigram Road.

 

6.   Option 1- Wigram Road Extension (Magdala Link) Naming and Magdala Place Numbers and Name Change (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Name the new section of road 'Wigram Road' and change the addresses of 6 Magdala Place to 6 Wigram Road and 8 Magdala Place to 8 Wigram Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The above mentioned numbers are the only properties specifically affected by this option due to their addresses being changed.  They have been informed and will be notified of the date the address change will take effect from, once the Community Board approves the changes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in that the new numbers and road name is logical and maintains a safe road environment.

Financial Implications

6.6       There are no costs of Implementation as there is nothing to implement.

6.7       There are no ongoing maintenance costs.

6.8       Funding is not required to approve these road name and address changes.

Legal Implications

6.9       The Council has the power under Section 319(j) of the Local Government Act 1974 that enables the Council to alter the name of any road. The power contained in Section 319(j) has been delegated to its Community Boards.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Not Applicable

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - dependant on construction target dates being met

6.12    Implementation timeframe - Changes of addresses to take effect on 29 August 2016

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supporting business

·   Improving safety and legibility for  road users

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No disadvantages have been identified

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not change road name and street numbers

Significance

7.2       See 6.2 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See 6.3 above

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See 6.4 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - Doing nothing will not support business or legibility

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - see 6.6 above

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - see 6.7 above

7.8       Funding source - see 6.8 above

Legal Implications

7.9       See 6.9 above

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Doing nothing would result in frustration to the customers visiting and businesses located at numbers 6 and 8 Magdala Place because this section of Magdala Place will cease to exist.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Not Applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages of doing nothing

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Safety risks due to unclear road names and possible confusion and hesitation by road users trying to visit businesses located at numbers 6 and 8 Magdala Place because this section of Magdala Place will cease to exist (See 7.10 above).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Plan Magdala/Wigram Road Name Change 16/567255 (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Steve Dejong

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

8.        Kirk Road and Kopara Street Intersection - Proposed No Stopping and P5 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

16/469524

Contact:

Steve Dejong

citystreetstrafficengineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve No Stopping Restrictions at the intersection of Kirk Road and Kopara Street and a 5 minute (At Any Time) Parking Restriction outside the dairy on Kopara Street (refer to Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is a staff generated report following requests from the public that the Council improve safety for children crossing at the intersection.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the criteria listed in the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south west side of Kirk Road commencing at the intersection of Kopara Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south west side of Kirk Road commencing at the intersection of Kopara Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south east side of Kopara Street commencing at the intersection of Kirk Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north west side of Kopara Street commencing at the intersection of Kirk Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

5.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five  minutes (at any time) on the south  east side of Kopara Street commencing at point 10 metres south west of the intersection of Kirk Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping and Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Installing No Stopping Restrictions at this intersection discourages motorists from parking near the intersection

·     Installing No Stopping Restrictions at the intersection improves safety for road users

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no disadvantages with this option

4.4       Option 2 is not preferred because it does not address the road safety issues at this intersection

 

5.   Context/Background

Kopara Street and Kirk Road Proposed No Stopping and Parking Restrictions

5.1       The intersection of Kirk Road and Kopara Street is located directly opposite the Templeton Primary School and approximately 150 metres south east of the school controlled zebra crossing over Kirk Road.

5.2       Parents of children attending the school have raised concerns that motorists are parking right on the corner of Kirk Road and Kopara Street reducing the sight lines of children crossing Kopara Street at this point.

5.3       Staff investigating this matter confirmed that intervisibility between pedestrians and turning motorists was obscured by vehicles parking too close to this intersection.

5.4       The proposed No Stopping Restrictions (see Attachment A) will discourage motorists from parking too close to the intersection hence improving sight lines, intervisibility and safety for all road users, especially children crossing unassisted at this location.

5.5       So as not to reduce parking for customers of the dairy located on the south east corner of the intersection, it is proposed to install a 2 to 3 space Five Minute Parking Restriction on Kopara Street at the end of the proposed No Stopping Restriction.

6.   Option 1 - No Stopping and Parking Restrictions - Kopara Street and Kirk Road Intersection (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Installing No Stopping Restrictions at the corner of Kirk Road and Kopara Street and a P5 Parking Restriction on Kopara Street.

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 low.

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       There are only three properties affected by this proposal, being Numbers 1 (the dairy) to 3 Kopara Street and Number 29 Kirk Road. All three property owners were spoken to by Council staff and support this proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council's Plans and Policies in that it is a targeted safety improvement.

Financial Implications

6.6       The cost of installing the No Stopping and P5 Parking Restrictions is approximately $550

6.7       On-going maintenance of the signs and markings will be funded through the pavement maintenance budget.

Legal Implications

6.8       The Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install parking restrictions.

6.9       The installation of traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport: Traffic Control Devices Rule2004.

6.10    Community Boards have the delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations which include the resolution of stopping and parking restrictions.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    Subject to Community Board approval.

Implementation

6.12    Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improving safety for road users

·   Supporting Business.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No disadvantages have been identified.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not install the parking restrictions

Significance

7.2       See 6.2 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See 6.3 above.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See 6.4 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Doing nothing will not support road safety or business.

Financial Implications

7.6       There will be no financial implications if nothing is done.

Legal Implications

7.7       See 6.8 and 6.9 above.

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       There is an increased likelihood of a potential conflict at this intersection if nothing is done.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.10    The advantages of this option include:

·   There is no advantage in doing nothing

7.11    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Sight lines will not be met at this intersection

·   Identified safety issue will remain

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Kirk Road and Kopara Street Intersection - No Stopping Restrictions - Plan

22

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Steve Dejong

Steve Parry

Steffan Thomas

Traffic Engineer

Manager Traffic Operations

Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory

David Adamson

Head of Transport

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

9.        Riccarton Road Bus Priority - Kauri Lodge Access Issues

Reference:

16/448825

Contact:

Adam Taylor

Adam.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

039418552

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to be informed of the implications of the approved Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme being amended to permit right turn movements into and out of the eastern Kauri Lodge access at 148 Riccarton Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the request from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board that staff consider a response in relation to a deputation made by Mr Hamish Bennett from Kauri Lodge and report back to the Board (ref RWCB/2016/00035).

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 reference to the template for recording significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Recognise the deputation made to them on behalf of Kauri Lodge, requesting that changes be made to the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme, to permit right turn movements into and out of the current eastern access to Kauri Lodge.

2.         Receive this staff report in response to their request for a report responding to Mr Hamish Bennett's deputation.

3.         Note the conclusions of the report, and therefore, for reasons of road safety, congestion and the efficient and effective operation of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme, decline to request that the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee over-turn their approval of the previously agreed scheme for the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Maintain the existing design (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Change the design to allow right turn movements into and out of Kauri Lodge.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     No worsening in road safety conditions.

·     No worsening in congestion along Riccarton Road.

·   No adverse impact on the operation of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme.

·   No additional costs on Christchurch City Council (CCC) which would have occurred as a result of the redesign of the scheme, new safety audits and new public consultation process.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Some increased journey times/distances for a limited number of staff/residents/visitors to Kauri Lodge.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Introduction

 

5.1       This report has been prepared to inform the Riccarton Wigram Community Board about the safety and congestion implications of a request by the Kauri Lodge to change the design of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (ITE) approved design for the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme. In particular, Kauri Lodge have requested that the design of bus priority measures be amended to permit right turn movements into and out of the eastern access to the site.  

5.2       This report will analyse the safety and capacity/delay implications of making changes to the design of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme design, making reference to comments made by the Kauri Lodge's traffic consultant, Novogroup (refer Appendix A), an independent safety review, undertaken by BECA, (included as Appendix B), and wider considerations of congestion, safety, and the management of arterial corridors. 

Background

5.3       The Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme is a number of measures, which include the provision of bus lanes and intersection upgrades which seek to enhance bus provision along Riccarton Road, making the use of public transport more attractive by reducing journey times, increasing bus journey time reliability and enhancing passenger comfort. The project was designed as part of the "An Accessible City" projects deemed necessary through CERA’s programme of works, aimed at assisting in the regeneration of Christchurch’s City Centre. Its inclusion in the "An Accessible City" programme of works recognised the fact that Riccarton Road is the most crucial public transport corridor in the city, and that in order for the central city to operate satisfactorily in the future, then it would be necessary to implement measures along Riccarton Road that made the use of public transport more attractive.

5.4       After an extensive period of design and consultation, proposals for the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme were agreed by the ITE Committee and the Council and signed-off in August 2015. As a result, construction of a variety of Riccarton Road projects proceeded, firstly in the form of the construction of the bus lounge to facilitate greater passenger comfort when interchanging between bus services, and latterly in terms of the design of bus priority measures along the route.

5.5       At this stage, it is anticipated that construction of the bus priority measures will take place in stages, starting in August 2016, with the section of the route in the vicinity of Matipo Street being completed by June 2017.

5.6       As shown in Figure 1, the proposals for the bus lanes in the vicinity of Kauri Lodge provide a 4.5 metre wide westbound bus/left turn lane on the southside of Riccarton Road, alongside a 3.1 metre wide westbound through traffic lane, and a 1.8 metre wide solid central median island on the eastern approach to the Matipo Street/Riccarton Road intersection for a distance of 39 metres. This would prevent right turn movements occurring into or out of the existing eastern Kauri Lodge access at 148 Riccarton Road. The design would not impact on the western Kauri Lodge access at 154 Riccarton Road, which accesses directly out into the Matipo Street intersection.

5.7       Other schemes considered and consulted upon provided longer median islands than this, or provided bus lanes on both sides of the road, meaning it was not possible to accommodate a central median. In each case these were ultimately dismissed either because it was deemed unnecessary to provide an eastbound bus lane, or because safety audit and capacity reasons dictated the length of the solid central median.

5.8       In the first instance it should be noted that the provision of a solid median island preventing right turning movements is entirely within the power of the CCC as road controlling authority, and is a recognised and accepted method of restricting right turning movements close to intersections. Such an approach has been used at numerous locations around the city, including some locations along the Riccarton/Yaldhurst corridor (at Church Corner and Harakeke Street), and will be used at other locations along the Riccarton Road corridor as part of the Bus Priority project. 

5.9       It should also be noted that the length of the median island provided, would still allow vehicles to turn right into 144 Riccarton Road, a site owned by Kauri Lodge, and as such could provide a right turn access at this point at some time in the future. 

5.10    Accordingly, it was recognised that the scheme signed-off by the ITE Committee and the Council provided an appropriate balance between the need to enhance bus priority measures, and ensure that congestion and road safety risks are minimised. 

5.11    As indicated previously, the Riccarton Road Bus Priority measures involved an extensive period of consultation, and Kauri Lodge provided comments during this process. These did not raise any concerns or issues over the prevention of right turns into or out of their eastern site access due to the presence of the solid median island on the eastern approach to the Matipo/Riccarton intersection.

5.12    Recently, the CCC were contacted by Kauri Lodge highlighting a concern that the presence of the solid median island as signed-off by the Committee and the Council, would unnecessarily impede access to their site, and they therefore requested that the scheme designed be revised, with the length of the solid median island being reduced to permit right turns into and out of their eastern access.

5.13    On 19April 2016, Kauri Lodge made a deputation to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, formally requesting that the Community Board support a request to the ITE Committee to over-turn the approval of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme, also requesting that they instruct staff to revise the design to permit right turn movements into and out of Kauri Lodge. 

5.14    In addition to this, Kauri Lodge submitted a report by a traffic consultant they employed, Novogroup, in support of the changes, which is attached as Appendix A. The key elements of this report are paragraphs 19 and 20 which state that "The bus lane on the opposite (southern side of the carriageway would not be affected by right turn movements into and out of the site"(Kauri Lodge)  and "An extension of the flush median outside Kauri Lodge would not have any noticeable effect on the efficiency of traffic on Riccarton Road in this location" and furthermore that "Most importantly, the provision of a flush median would have no impact on the operation of the bus priority measures proposed.

5.15    It is also worth noting at this point that during their verbal deputation to the Community Board, Kauri Lodge indicated that they had no intention to develop the site further. However, it is noted that paragraph 4 of the Novogroup report indicates that "If the site were to be redeveloped in the future, the District Plan high trip generator rule would only be triggered if an additional 60 or more residential/care units were provided". If this were to be true, then it is clear that Kauri Lodge could significantly redevelop their site with limited consideration to the safety and efficiency of their access arrangements, and only limited consideration of the impacts on the surrounding road network.   

5.16    As a result of the Kauri Lodge deputation and the Novogroup report , the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requested that staff produce a report which considered the safety and congestion issues arising from this request, taking into account a recently commissioned safety review of the possibility of permitting right turns into Kauri Lodge.

Safety

5.17    The following is a summary of the traffic safety related implications of proposals to change the Bus Priority scheme design to permit right turn movements into and out of the eastern Kauri Lodge access, making specific reference to a Safety Report undertaken by BECA, included as Appendix B.

5.18    In order to determine the safety implications of permitting right turn movements into and out of the eastern Kauri Lodge access, the Safety Report examined road safety issues in relation to the three  different sets of circumstances; the operation of Kauri Lodge accesses under "existing" (pre-bus priority) conditions, the operation of the Kauri Lodge accesses under conditions once the approved bus priority improvements were fully constructed, and finally the operation of the Kauri Lodge accesses assuming that the bus priority improvements approved, were fully constructed AND the requested changes by Kauri Lodge were made.

5.19    The safety report analyses the safety issues around both the existing (pre-bus priority) eastern and western Kauri Lodge accesses, and concludes in Section 3.1.3 that "Turning left into the western access and left out of the eastern access will pose no significant safety issues. However, turning right into and out of both accesses poses serious safety concerns…….."(emphasis added).

5.20    The review of the Kauri Lodge access arrangements under the approved bus priority scheme recognises that no changes are made to the western Kauri Lodge access. However, the review notes that, in relation to changes made to the eastern access (which restrict right turn movements in and out) "By restricting this access, the current safety issues at the eastern access with vehicles turning right in and right out will be removed".

5.21    The safety review also recognises at this point that "the prevention of these turning movements may lead to an increase in the use of western access (Matipo signals), which there are safety concerns with" but as discussed to a greater extent below concludes that overall the Bus Priority proposals is the "safest arrangement overall ".

5.22    Ultimately the safety review report summarises the safety performance of the three Options by including a matrix on page 13 of the various safety issues, and concludes with the statement "it can be seen that the Bus Priority proposals including the median island is assessed as being the safest arrangement overall (emphasis added). However, none of the 3 options, including the Bus priority option, addresses the serious concern which is the right turn movement out of the western access".  

5.23    Due to the fact that it is not possible to undertake the necessary works to restrict right turn movements into and out of the Kauri Lodge access at Matipo Street without also restricting turning movements into and out of Matipo Street from Riccarton Road, such a restriction of turning movements would inevitably lead to very significant network impacts in terms of increased congestion/delays and increased accident rates elsewhere.   As a result, the CCC are not in a position to enforce turning restrictions at the intersection of Matipo Street and Riccarton Road.  However, the safety issues highlighted by the safety review in relation to the western Kauri Lodge access could be solved were Kauri Lodge prepared to reconfigure their Matipo Street access in conjunction with their other access in order to enhance the safety of customers and visitors to their site.

5.24    This point is recognised in the Discussions and Recommendations section of the Safety Review when it is stated that "In the short term, access would ideally be via a left turn in/out arrangement and a suitable safer u-turning location or routing be identified that could be communicated to Kauri Lodge Users. Kauri Lodge should recognise that their access arrangements lead to safety problems for the network and for those travelling to and from Kauri Lodge, and should consider a reconsolidation of their access arrangements, including taking any opportunity to close the existing access opposite Matipo Street".

5.25    The safety issues detailed in the safety report can occur for a number of reasons. Firstly, as with any other right turn movement, vehicles seeking to turn right into Kauri Lodge from Riccarton Road will have to slow to await a suitable gap in opposing traffic before turning right. Although there would be a flush median available for vehicles to make this manoeuvre,  Figure 2 (attached) shows that as a result of the fact that the median provided is only at a width of 1.8  metres wide, even a vehicle as narrow as a "90%" car which is 1.73 metre wide (without wing mirrors) would stick out into the adjacent through lane. Given that the vast majority of vehicles on the eastern approach to the intersection will be seeking to continue along Riccarton Road, there is a risk that they will not be anticipating the vehicle in front of them slowing down (particularly when the signal aspect for westbound movements through the intersection is green) and "rear end shunt" style crashes occur.

5.26    The other key safety concern in relation to permitting the right turn movement into Kauri Lodge concerns the safety effect when westbound vehicles recognise the presence of a vehicle turning right into Kauri Lodge and seeks to undertake any vehicles which are waiting to turn right into Kauri Lodge. There is risk that any vehicle doing so would cross into the adjacent bus/left turn lane. Figure 3 shows the swept path of an 8 metre truck (relatively small for a truck) undertaking a car turning right into Kauri Lodge, and shows that when doing so it is partially forced into the adjacent bus/left turn lane, increasing the chances of "side swipe" accidents with vehicles and cyclists in the ahead/left turn lane.

5.27    Other safety issues will also be apparent if right turn movements out of Kauri Lodge are permitted. Given that traffic volumes eastbound along Riccarton Road are very high, and queues can often block back in both directions past the Kauri Lodge access, then turning right out of Kauri Lodge will be extremely difficult. As demonstrated in Figure 4, in this situation drivers can tend to behave in one of two ways, either taking risks to turn out of the access, which is a safety risk, or alternatively slowly proceeding into the eastbound traffic flow to try and force access into the westbound lane, which will significantly disrupt eastbound traffic flows on Riccarton Road.

Capacity/Congestion

5.28    In addition to the safety concerns detailed above, there would be other concerns that would arise should right turn movements into and out of Kauri Lodge be permitted. Permitting right turns at the Kauri Lodge access will result in capacity and congestion concerns. As already indicated, any vehicle waiting to turn right into Kauri Lodge would partially block the adjacent through lane, reducing the ability of through traffic to reach the Matipo Street intersection, as shown in Figure 5. As a result, at any time when a vehicle turning right into Kauri Lodge partially blocks the adjacent through lane it has the possibility of impacting on the performance of the Matipo Street intersection, therefore leading to greater degrees of congestion and delay.

 

Bus Priority measures

5.29    Permitting right turn movements into the eastern Kauri Lodge access could also lead to significant impacts in terms of the function of the newly installed bus lane. The bus lane will reduce bus journey times by allowing buses to "jump" any queue which forms on the eastern approach to Matipo Street by providing a "B" light for buses and a left turn arrow when a bus approaches the intersection.  However, as shown in Figure 6 attached, the presence of vehicles turning right into Kauri Lodge would mean that vehicles seeking to queue in the through lane, risk blocking the adjacent lane provided for left turners and Bbuses at the Matipo Street intersection. As a result, the buses would not be able to take advantage of the "B" light they were given, undermining the bus priority scheme. 

5.30    Therefore, it is not considered possible to support the re-instatement of right turning vehicles into and out of Kauri Lodge, as, contrary to what is claimed in the Novogroup report, doing so would result in adverse safety and capacity/congestion impacts, and would undermine the ability of the bus priority scheme to reduce bus journey times, by inhibiting the ability of buses to advantage of the "B light" provided at the Matipo Street/Riccarton Road intersection.

Impacts on Kauri Lodge

5.31    It is important to put the scale of the disruption that the restricting right turn movements for residents/staff and visitors in the correct context. The Novogroup report indicates that as a result of the turning restrictions it will be necessary to undertake a detour of up to two kilometres.

5.32    In reality this is not the case. While such a detour may be necessary for residents/staff and visitors the first time they approach from Riccarton Road and are unable to make a right turn, beyond that point they will be aware of the right turning restrictions, and will instead re-route at an earlier point on their journey, resulting in significantly smaller detours.

5.33    As examples of this, Figure 7 shows the impact on journey distances to Kauri Lodge from points to the north, south, east and west of Kauri Lodge that would occur with and without right turning restrictions in place. This shows that traffic travelling to and from the site from the east, south and west is barely impacted upon in terms of increased journey distances, with only traffic from the north of the site seeing increased journey distances (being forced to route to the site via Clyde Road rather than down Straven Road).

5.34    Kauri Lodge have also indicated a concern that the turning restrictions would result in increased response times for emergency vehicles as a result of having to undertake such a detour. Again, in reality this would not occur, emergency response vehicles would instead use their flashing lights to clear a path to Kauri Lodge, avoiding right turn restrictions either by turning right into the Matipo Street intersection access, or alternatively, by driving on the north side of the island for the very limited distance between the end of the island and the Kauri Lodge driveway.

5.35    On this basis it is clear that the adverse impacts on Kauri Lodge would not be as significant as indicated, with only very limited disruption occurring. Given the heavy traffic flows along Riccarton Road (27,000 vehicles per day at the last count), these disruptive effects can be regarded as very minor in the context of the increased delay/congestion and increased safety risks for a significant number of users of the corridor, as well as the disruptive influence to the bus priority scheme that would occur were right turn movements into and out of the eastern Kauri Lodge access to be permitted.

5.36    There are other examples around the city where right turn movements into and/out of aged care rest homes are in place for safety and capacity reasons, most notably at the BUPA Parkwood Rest Home and Hospital on Aldwins Road (Figure 8), and at the Addington Rest Home on Lincoln Road (Figure 9), where each facility seems to operate successfully without direct right turn access.    

5.37    Furthermore, making changes to the design of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme would not be a straightforward process, given the fact that the scheme has already be approved by the ITE Committee and by the Council. In the first instance the scheme would have to be redesigned, and pass through a formal safety audit process. Assuming this process is concluded satisfactorily there will be a need to re-consult on the amended design. Assuming this process was concluded satisfactorily them it would be necessary to re-evaluate the costs of the works, and present a report, firstly to the ITE Committee and then to the Council for approval. Only after this point would the change to the design be formally accepted. 

5.38    As a result, there would be cost implications for the CCC involved in redesigning, safety auditing and consulting upon the new scheme, and doing so would provide a scheme that is less safe and lead to more congestion/delays for the vast majority of users of the route, and provides a solution that is less effective in reducing bus journey times. 

6.   Option 1 - Maintain the approved design (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Maintain the existing design of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority measures as signed-off by the ITE Committee in August 2015.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not relevant as this scheme has already been consulted upon, and approved by the ITE Committee and the Council.

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       Kauri Lodge are specifically affected by this option due to restrictions on right turn movements at their eastern access.  Their views are reflected in their submissions made to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board. In terms of the wider community, there has been general support for the provision of bus lanes along Riccarton Road, and the restrictions on right turn movements will help to ensure this scheme operates satisfactorily.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - None, above the level of expenditure which would have been necessary to construct the bus priority measures as previously signed off by the ITE Committee and the Council.

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - None, above the level of expenditure which would have been necessary to construct the bus priority measures as previously signed-off by the ITE Committee and the Council.

6.8       Funding source -the project is funded through the An Accessible City programme of works.

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications to this option, as the scheme in its current form has already been signed-off by the ITE Committee.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    There are no risks to this option.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - There are no implementation dependencies to this option.

6.12    Implementation timeframe - Construction on the Riccarton Road Bus Priority lanes is anticipated to begin in August 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No worsening in road safety conditions.

·   No worsening in congestion along Riccarton Road.

·   No impact on the operation of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority scheme.

·   No additional costs on the CCC, which would have occurred as a result of the redesign of the scheme, new safety audits and new public consultation process.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Some increased journey times/distances for a limited number of staff/residents/visitors to Kauri Lodge.

7.   Option 2 - Change the design to allow right turning movements into and out of Kauri Lodge

Option Description

7.1       Change the scheme as requested by Kauri Lodge to permit right turn movements into and out of their eastern site access by reducing the length of the solid central median island in Riccarton Road.

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 would require that the revised scheme design is consulted upon again.

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       Kauri Lodge are specifically affected by this option due to their request for the re-instatement of right turn movements at the eastern access. On a more general basis, the community was in general support of the bus priority measures, and it is considered likely that anything which undermined the provision of these measures would not be supported by the community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - this option is inconsistent with the Council's Plans and Policies.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - this option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies in that it leads to greater risks of crashes on the road network and increased congestion.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - This option will involve increased costs for theCCC as a result of the need to redesign the Riccarton Road Bus Priority Scheme, to undertake another safety audit, and to reconsult on the new design.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - This option will have no increase in maintenance/ongoing costs when compared to the approved Bus Priority Scheme.

7.8       Funding source - Funding for the additional costs will have to be taken from the "An Accessible City project" budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       There could be possible legal implications should designers be forced into a position where they are instructed to make changes to a design that they cannot support from a safety perspective.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Should the new design face any problems in terms of safety audit, problems could occur in terms of getting senior management sign-off to permit what is perceived to be an unsafe design for construction.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - As indicated above, undertaking the requested changes could be impacted upon by the ability to adequately address issues relating to any safety audit.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - A redesign and further consultation process would likely lead to delays in the delivery of the Riccarton Road bus priority lanes, possibly by up to six  months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Adheres to Kauri Lodge's wishes to allow all movements access to their site, meaning that the limited number of staff, residents and visitors to the site who would otherwise have been disadvantaged by the right turn movement ban, would no longer be disadvantaged.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased congestion at the Matipo Street/Riccarton Road intersection.

·   Increased safety risks on the approach to the Matipo Street/Riccarton Road intersection.

·   Reduced effectiveness of the bus priority measures provided along Riccarton Road.

·   Increased financial costs on the CCC arising from the need to redesign, safety audit and consult upon the new proposals.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Kauri Lodge Riccarton Road Figures (Under Separate Cover)

 

b  

Apprendix A Novogroup Report

33

c  

Appendix B Safety Report

41

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Adam Taylor

Richard Holland

Senior Transport Planner

Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Richard Holland

Chris Gregory

Team Leader Asset Planning

Head of Transport

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

10.    Riccarton Community Centre Concept Design

Reference:

16/598856

Contact:

Kent Summerfield

kent.summerfield@ccc.govt.nz

941 8194

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre provided under Option One of this report and authorise staff to proceed with completing design, consenting and construction work to deliver the new facility.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to address resolutions of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board from 18 May 2016.  At that meeting the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

1.      Receive the Facilitator's report of the Board Workshop regarding the Riccarton Community Centre held on 22 March 2016.

2.      Adopt the recommendations contained in the Board Workshop report as follows:

2.1   Future Proofing

That the Board ask staff to proceed with the design option which provides for the possible future expansion of the Riccarton Community Centre across the identified ground-level car park together with parking on the roof of the expanded building.

2.2   Service Desk/Centre

That the Riccarton Community Centre contain flexible, multi-purpose space that is capable of accommodating Council services which may evolve over time and noting that for this to be achieved, will result in the loss of some community based space.

2.3  Additional Staffing

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will provide early clarification of its views regarding the extent of Council ‘services’ to be provided in the Community Centre (refer recommendation 2.2 above) and hence staffing requirements.

2.4   Consultation

That future consultation on the Provisional Concept Design of the Riccarton Community Centre consist of the opportunity for deputations to be made directly to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board after these recommendations have been considered and adopted by the Board.

         

2.5  Library options

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will not promote the inclusion of a Council library within the Community Centre but will seek to have investigated other forms of library services.

2.6  Next Steps

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolves to agree on the following process for finalising the Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre:

·   That the Board decisions on the recommendations arising from this Workshop, be disseminated to the public in due course.

·   That opportunities are provided for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to receive deputations on the Provisional Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre. 

·   That providing the Board's decisions are in line with the Council resolution of 11 February 2016, the decisions made are to be referred to Council staff for implementation. 

3.      Endorse the elements of the Concept Design set out in the Board Workshop report and as presented at this Board meeting, and that these become the Provisional Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre.

4.      Instruct staff to:

4.1       Make the Provisional Concept Design available to the community and identified stakeholders, and

4.2       Communicate clearly to the community and identified stakeholders that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will consider the adoption of the Provisional Concept Design at its ordinary meeting on 14 June 2016.  

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 assessing the impact of the concept design for a new Riccarton Community Centre against each criterion as specified in the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy worksheet for significance assessments. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre provided under Option 1 of this report and authorise staff to proceed with completing design, consenting, procurement and construction work to deliver the new facility.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1 Provide community facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 (Recommended Option) Expandable design.  This option was identified by the Community Board as the Provisional Concept Design by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 16 May 2016.  It features a flat concrete roof which would allow for future expansion should a need to do so be identified.  It features three Activity/Meeting Rooms, an area set aside for staffing, a large Foyer, a Rain Garden, a Kitchen, and a Function Room as well as supporting facilities and outdoor areas.

·     Option 2 Curved Roof.  This design features a curved roof profile supported by a timber structure.  The internal layout as depicted is fully multi-purpose and features four Activity/Meeting Rooms, a large Foyer, a Kitchen, and a Function Room as well as supporting facilities and outdoor areas.

·     Option 3 Select neither design.  Under this option staff would be instructed to explore alternate designs for a facility in the same identified location.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   Option 1 Expandable design

·     Advantages – The primary advantage of this option is that is designed to be expandable should future requirements necessitate it.

The option retains flexible, multi-purpose spaces whilst also providing an area to be staffed.

·     Disadvantages – Perhaps considered by some as externally less unique/aesthetically appealing.

4.3.2   Option 2 Curved Roof

·     Advantages – This design is likely to be considered by some as more unique/aesthetically appealing.

As depicted the layout maximises flexible multi-purpose spaces but lacks a staffed area, although this could be amended.

·     Disadvantages – Building could not easily be expanded to accommodate future increase in demand.

4.3.3   Option 3 Select Neither Design

·     Advantages – This would allow additional input gathered to be factored into a revised concept design/s (although this is only an advantage if seeking a fundamentally different concept design, otherwise minor alterations could be incorporated into subsequent design phases using one of the concept options presented here).

Disadvantages – Would delay the project, potentially significantly, and add to overall cost. 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Riccarton Community Centre was damaged in the Canterbury Earthquakes.  The foyer, toilets, committee room and rear kitchen area were opened in June 2013 after engineering assessments and a fire review confirmed the areas were suitable for occupation. The main hall remains very badly damaged and has been closed and secured from public access.


 

5.2       Investigative works and reporting around options commenced in late 2013 and following a report to the meeting of 31 July 2014, it was resolved that the Council:

·   "Approve staff to progress, in order of priority, negotiations on the following three long term options, and report back to the Community Committee to enable a preferred option to be considered by the Council:

·   Priority number 1:  Sell part of the existing site and develop the remaining area (which could include retrofitting the existing Robbie’s Bar and Bistro).

·   Priority number 2:  Sale of the existing site and rebuild a new facility on an alternative site.

·   Priority number 3:  Sale of the existing site and buy and retrofit an existing building or lease elsewhere on an alternative site."

5.3       Subsequently a report was presented to the Council in the Public Excluded section of the
10-15 December 2014 meeting which presented the following options:

·        Priority 1 – Sell part of the existing site and develop the remaining area’

Option 1(a) Retrofit of Robbie’s Bar & Bistro and sell remainder of site

Option 1(b) Rebuild a new facility somewhere on the existing 4676m2 site and sell remainder of site

·        Priority 2 – ‘Sale of the existing site and rebuild a new facility on an alternative site’

Option 2(a) Co location with Public Transport Interchange

Option 2(b) Purchase of another site to build a new facility

·        Priority 3 – ‘Sale of the existing site and buy and retrofit an existing building or

lease elsewhere on an alternative site’

             Option 3 Buy or lease elsewhere

5.4       After consideration of the options as outlined in 5.3, it was resolved that the Council:

6.1       Approve staff to progress option 1(b) in section 4.3.2 of this report to dispose of a portion of a Council property located at 199-201 Clarence Street, Riccarton and the building of a new community facility on the remaining portion of the existing site at 199-201 Clarence Street, through design, tendering and construction stages, informed by a participatory community design process for the facility concept design actively engaging the wider community.

6.2       Approve for staff to identify any surplus portion of site at 199-201 Clarence Street and begin the disposal process.

6.3       Delegate to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to negotiate and conclude any agreement for any sale of any surplus portion of the Clarence Street land at a price of not less than 90 percent of market value; subject to the Christchurch City Council's normal property disposal process.

6.4       Resolve that proceeds from the sale of surplus land at 199-201 Clarence Street be specifically set aside for this project.

6.5       Resolve that if the disposal process does not occur in the 2014/2015 financial year that the anticipated proceeds from the sale and the corresponding project capital budget be included in the Long Term Plan.

6.6       That the final concept design be presented to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requesting a recommendation to the Council.

6.7       Delegate authority to the director of the Facilities and Infrastructure Rebuild Group to make such arrangements as required to give effect to Council’s resolutions in sections 6.1 to 6.6 of this report.

5.5       In accordance with [above] resolution point 6.2, staff investigated potential facility layouts and site positioning, and determined that the Northern most corner of the site was the most suitable area for the facility.  Necessary car parking is to be located directly below the facility and the remainder of the section to the South was deemed surplus and to be sold to fund the new facility as per resolution point 6.4.

5.6       The Northern portion of the site was preferred because:

5.6.1   It maximises the amount of site available for disposal as:

·   The site shape is more regular (continuous rectangular) at the South for ease of sale/subdivision.

·   Locating the building at the slightly smaller North end facilitates the most efficient car park layout, i.e. we get the maximum number of car parks by using the narrowest slice off the rest of the site.

5.6.2   It connects best to existing activities in the area as:

·   It is closest to existing activities, particularly the pedestrian activity on Riccarton Road and on Rotheram Street.

·   It has the best connections to public transport on Riccarton Road (within 200 metres of two bus stops).

5.6.3   Additional functional considerations for selecting the Northern area include:

·   Placing the building at the North most edge gives guaranteed access to sun (north orientation) which is highly desired for functions and community use.

·   It provides highest visibility and prominence (due to view angles from Riccarton Road and Clarence Street) 

·   It helps define an edge to therefore contribute to the existing pedestrian network between Clarence and Rotheram Streets.

·   It is separated from the large car parking building and its busy access.

 

5.7       The decision to locate the facility at the Northern most portion of the site, and preliminary space planning layouts were discussed with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 5 May 2015, and a memorandum on 11 June 2015 further advised the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Executive Leadership Team.

5.8       Following identification of a preferred facility site, staff circulated the property map in accordance with the Councils' Property Disposal Process, and the Transport team indicated that they would like approximately 265 square metres of the street frontage of the site, 2.4 metres inside the current boundary, to facilitate potential future road widening.  The affected area is shown in Attachment 5 and the transfer was approved by the Director, Facilities and Infrastructure Group under his delegation for this project.

5.9       Once the internal transfer of land as per 5.8 was accounted for, 2,706 square metres of land remained as surplus to the needs of the new facility and is to be sold on the open market. Refer to Attachment 6 for detail.  Consultation on this sale pursuant to s138 of the Local Government Act is now complete. 

5.10    Further community consultation was undertaken specific to the design of the new facility in July and August 2015.  This took the form of interactive engagement at three separate venues and sought feedback by way of ranking previous nominated criteria as well as sourcing new ideas.  Staff received 435 pieces of feedback, building on earlier stakeholder consultation conducted in February 2014 and May/June 2014. 

5.11    Consistent with the Council resolution to undertake "a participatory community design process for the facility concept design actively engaging the wider community", the community were not presented with pre-conceived designs as part of the consultation, allowing them to be as creative as they wished with their input in the design process.  A report of the consultation process and findings can be found in Attachment 7.

5.12    Council staff incorporated feedback from the community consultation into the working design brief and produced two concept designs for consideration by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board at their meeting of 15 December 2015.  The option that was identified as preferred at that point is shown in attachment 4.  PLEASE NOTE THAT WHILE THE DESIGN SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT 4 IS OPTION 2 WITHIN THIS REPORT, IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE RICCARTON COMMMUNITY BOARD MEETINGS OF 15 DECEMBER 2015 AND 2 FEBRUARY 2016 AND THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 14 FEBRUARY 2016 THIS DESIGN IS REFERRED TO AS OPTION 1 (AS IT WAS PREFERRED AT THAT POINT).

5.13    Specifically the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recorded that:

At its meeting on 15 December 2015, the Board recommended to the Council:

18.1        That it endorses the concept design for the Riccarton Community Centre provided under Option One (OPTION 2 of this report) of the staff report and authorises staff to proceed with completing the design, consenting and construction work to deliver the new facility.

18.2.      That staff investigate the possibility of either incorporating a second floor, or providing potential for a second floor as demand increases.

The Board also noted that the Riccarton Service Centre will "remain in either Riccarton or Upper Riccarton library during and following the completion of construction of the New Riccarton Community Centre".

Having given further consideration to the views expressed by a number of people and organisations with an interest in the proposed new Riccarton Community Centre, and received deputations on the matter at its meeting on 2 February 2016, the Board has modified its position on a site for the Riccarton Service Centre and now recommends that the Council consider:

1.     That the Riccarton Community Centre is sufficiently staffed to enable the facility to operate effectively.

2.      That the Service Centre remain in the Riccarton Commercial Area - either in the new Community Centre or another location.

3.      That staff consult with the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board regarding the Service Centre location.

In relation to the above recommendations, it is the Board's view that:

·    This option fits in with community activities being described as Key Activity Centres in the proposed Replacement District Plan;

·    The Community Centre will require staffing;

·    The transaction levels are high (graph attached);

·    Many people living in the area close to the Riccarton Community Centre do not have cars;

·    There is no evidence that these people would easily transfer to a Service Centre in the Upper Riccarton Library;

·    Many other Service Centres are close in or close to commercial hubs;

·    Many other people access Riccarton by bus being a major hub for public transport.

The Board notes that the Riccarton Volunteer Library has decided not to transfer to the new Community Centre.  In the interim they will continue in the current Riccarton Community Centre.  The Riccarton Volunteer Library has been serving the Riccarton community since 1928.

The Board otherwise confirmed the recommendations contained in its resolutions 18.1 and 18.2  of its 15 December 2015 meeting.

Furthermore, at its meeting on 2 February 2016, the Board separately resolved to release into open meeting, the staff report considered in public excluded on 15 December 2015.

The Board also decided to release into open meeting its public excluded minutes of 15 December 2015 on this matter.

5.14    The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board’s recommendation as recorded in 5.13 was passed via resolution at the Council meeting of 14 February 2016.

5.15    A Riccarton/Wigram Community Board workshop was held on 22 March 2016 to discuss progressing the project and to introduce a design option for consideration which allowed for future expansion, if demand warranted it in the future.

5.16    At that workshop the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board indicated a preference for a design option which would allow for future expansion and asked staff to refine the design for formal consideration.

5.17    Design refinement as requested was undertaken by staff and at the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting of 17 May 2016, the Board resolved to:

1.         Receive the Facilitator's report of the Board Workshop regarding the Riccarton Community Centre held on 22 March 2016.

2.         Adopt the recommendations contained in the Board Workshop report as follows:

          2.1          Future Proofing

That the Board ask staff to proceed with the design option which provides for the possible future expansion of the Riccarton Community Centre across the identified ground-level car park together with parking on the roof of the expanded building.

             2.2          Service Desk/Centre

That the Riccarton Community Centre contain flexible, multi-purpose space that is capable of accommodating Council services which may evolve over time and noting that for this to be achieved, will result in the loss of some community based space.

             2.3          Additional Staffing

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will provide early clarification of its views regarding the extent of Council ‘services’ to be provided in the Community Centre (refer recommendation 2.2 above) and hence staffing requirements.

             2.4          Consultation

That future consultation on the Provisional Concept Design of the Riccarton Community Centre consist of the opportunity for deputations to be made directly to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board after these recommendations have been considered and adopted by the Board.

            

             2.5          Library options

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will not promote the inclusion of a Council library within the Community Centre but will seek to have investigated other forms of library services.

             2.6          Next Steps

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolves to agree on the following process for finalising the Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre:

·     That the Board decisions on the recommendations arising from this Workshop, be disseminated to the public in due course.

·     That opportunities are provided for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to receive deputations on the Provisional Concept Design for the Riccarton Community Centre. 

·     That providing the Board's decisions are in line with the Council resolution of 11 February 2016, the decisions made are to be referred to Council staff for implementation. 

3.         Endorse the elements of the Concept Design set out in the Board Workshop report and as presented at this Board meeting, and that these become the Provisional Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre.

4.         Instruct staff to:

4.1          Make the Provisional Concept Design available to the community and identified stakeholders, and

4.2          Communicate clearly to the community and identified stakeholders that the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will consider the adoption of the Provisional Concept Design at its ordinary meeting on 14 June 2016. 

5.18    Subsequent to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting of 17 May 2016, the Provisional Concept Design as shown in Attachment 1 was distributed by staff to stakeholders, who were advised that the Board is to consider formally adopting the design on 14 June 2016, as instructed in Resolutions 4.1 and 4.2 of that meeting.

5.19    Consistent with Resolution 4.2 of their meeting of 17 May 2016, the Provisional Concept Design as shown in Attachment 1 is tabled again for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider formally adopting it as the Concept Design for the new Riccarton/Wigram Community Centre and authorise staff to proceed with completing design, consenting, procurement and construction work to deliver the new facility.

 

6.   Option 1 - Expandable design  (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Riccarton Community Facility is proposed to be located on the Northern most corner of the existing Council land on Clarence Street. The location is the most prominent within the site, particularly due to the corner location providing a wide viewing angle from the north near Riccarton Road corner.

6.2       The key aspect of this design which saw it preferred as the Provisional Concept is that it lends itself more easily than the Curved Roof option to future expansion should demand require it. 

6.3       The design facilitates potential expansion via use of a concrete shell including a flat concrete roof which would be used for carparking in the event of expansion, with useable public space being expanded out into the Option 1 (ground) carpark area.  In this event a ramp would be used to provide access to the carpark – an indicative feasibility design of how this might occur is shown in Attachment 2.

6.4       The concrete appearance is proposed to be softened by the use of Perforated Steel feature panels, and Laminated Timber roof and wall panels.

6.5       The design features three Activity/Meeting Rooms, an area set aside for staffing, a large Foyer, a Rain Garden, a Kitchen, and a Function Room as well as supporting facilities and outdoor areas.

6.6       Two of the walls dividing the Activity/Meeting Rooms are proposed to be operable which would assist in supporting flexibility of use/spaces.

6.7       The facility as shown in Attachment 1 is approximately 565m2 including the proposed Rain Garden and Deck areas.

6.8       A Transport Planning assessment has been undertaken regarding the parking and access situations for both the initial stage and the potential future expanded version and indicates both stages could achieve effects that are less than minor.  A summary memo of this assessment if provided as Attachment 3.

Significance

6.9       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Community consultation on both the sale of land identified as surplus, and the facility design itself has been undertaken to support the process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.10    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

6.11    The design features a staffed area as specifically requested by the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board and also features several multi-purpose flexible spaces (although not as many as Option 2) – an aspect that was highly ranked in the community feedback received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    The budget for this project will be comprised of:

·    $1,000,000 allocated as part of Tranche 1 Community Facilities Rebuild.

·    Internal transfer value for 265m2 of land to be transferred to Transport team.

·    Proceeds from sale of surplus land.

6.14    A review of the Option 1 Concept Design by Quantity Surveyors indicates that the cost of delivering the Option 1 design would be broadly in line with the anticipated project budget. 

6.15    If a shortfall presents itself once available funds from the land sale are confirmed, staff would either undertake value engineering of the design or seek additional funding should the shortfall be significant.

6.16    If a significant surplus of funds exists once land sale proceeds are received (allowing for sensible project contingency levels) then that surplus will be returned to the Improvement and Betterment allowance which funded Tranche 1 of the Facilities Rebuild.

6.17    The potential expanded version as shown in attachment 2 has been assessed as considerably more expensive than the available budget and therefore is not presented as a viable option at this point in time.

 

Legal Implications

6.18    Transfer and disposal of land has been/will be subject to the Council's Property Disposal Process.  Surplus land will be sold on the open market and consultation pursuant to s138 of the Local Government Act is now complete.

Risks and Mitigations

6.19    Budget uncertainty – as outlined in 6.13 the budget for the project is largely dependent on the proceeds from the sale of surplus land, a precise quantity for which is currently unknown.  Review by a Quantity Surveyor has indicated the budget should be reasonably consistent with the requirements of the project, but should a shortfall or surplus exist they would be addressed according to the approaches detailed in 6.15 and 6.16.

6.20    A Geotechnical Investigation of the site has now been undertaken indicating that the foundations and structure as allowed for Option 1 are appropriate but further detailed investigations will be required prior to progressing the design and if additional costs are identified either value engineering will be undertaken or additional funds will be sought.

Implementation

6.21    Implementation dependencies - once the concept design is approved, subsequent design phases can commence.  Demoltion of the Robbies building and pump houses, capping of historic wells, and relocation of the Service Centre would need to occur before settlement of the surplus land sale.

6.22    Implementation timeframe – if the concept design is approved at the 14 June 2016 Board meeting it is expected that Detailed Design would be completed early 2017, consents granted mid-2017 and construction completed mid-2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lends itself more easily to expansion than Option 2.  Provides several multi-purpose flexible spaces while also providing a staffed area.

6.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   May be considered by some to not have the same unique/aesthetic appeal.

7.   Option 2 – Curved Roof

Option Description

7.1       The Curved Roof Option as shown in Attachment 4 was designed to make the most of the prominent location to provide a strong and welcoming presence. The organic form of the roof and the structure create a high contrast to the surrounding built form and helps make the building stand out despite its small scale relative to its environment.

7.2       The concept design responds to the Christchurch City Council Asset Owner brief as well as the feedback from the comprehensive community consultation that took place in August 2015.

The community feedback from the August 2015 consultation centred on the key themes of:

·    Space for multiple activities (such as learning, making, active recreation and public/private functions); and

·    A welcoming, warm and friendly feel.

The proposed concept design addresses these through the use of high quality and warm materials and a flexible spatial arrangement that allows for multiple concurrent use.

Natural zinc roof and cladding, high level of glazing and exposed, organically shaped timber portals are high quality elements which respond to the community expectations of a quality, warm and welcoming space. They also satisfy the asset owner's requirement for robustness, low maintenance and energy efficiency with due consideration for pleasantness and high community appeal.

7.3       This concept design option is approximately 549 square metres in total including decking.  It features a large function room, a dual entry foyer, a kitchen, four activity/meeting rooms, multiple storage spaces, toilets, and a plant room.

7.4       It is planned that the four activity/meeting rooms would all feature retractable internal walls which allows them to be reconfigured into a combination of larger spaces as depicted in Attachment 4.  This is consistent with the criteria of having smaller meeting rooms and divisible spaces which scored highly in the community feedback.

7.5       The flexibility of the activity/meeting rooms and the lack of specific designations for individual rooms allows the facility to cater to the wide variety of functions that it may be required to support within the community.

7.6       The floor plan for this Option as shown in Attachment 4 does not currently allow for a staffed area or other dedicated spaces – all areas are multi-purpose.

Significance

7.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Community consultation on both the sale of land identified as surplus, and the facility design itself has been undertaken to support the process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.8       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

7.9       This option intends to provide a concept design meeting key aspects raised within the community feedback undertaken, particularly relating to a variety of flexible multi-purpose spaces and a warm, inviting feel. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.11    The budget for this project will be comprised of:

·    $1,000,000 allocated as part of Tranche 1 Community Facilities Rebuild.

·    Internal transfer value for 265m2 of land to be transferred to Transport team.

·    Proceeds from sale of surplus land.

7.12    A review of the Option 1 Concept Design by Quantity Surveyors indicates that the cost of delivering the Option 1 design would be broadly in line with the anticipated project budget. 

7.13    If a shortfall presents itself once available funds from the land sale are confirmed, staff would either undertake value engineering of the design or seek additional funding should the shortfall be significant.

7.14    If a significant surplus of funds exists once land sale proceeds are received (allowing for sensible project contingency levels) then that surplus will be returned to the Improvement and Betterment allowance which funded Tranche 1 of the Facilities Rebuild.

Legal Implications

7.15    Transfer and disposal of land has been/will be subject to the Council's Property Disposal Process.  Surplus land will be sold on the open market and consultation pursuant to s138 of the Local Government Act is now complete.

Risks and Mitigations

7.16    Budget uncertainty – as outlined in 7.11, the budget for the project is largely dependent on the proceeds from the sale of surplus land, a precise quantity for which is currently unknown.  Review by a Quantity Surveyor has indicated the budget should be reasonably consistent with the requirements of the project, but should a shortfall or surplus exist they would be addressed according to the approaches detailed in 7.13 and 7.14.

7.17    A Geotechnical Investigation of the site has now been undertaken indicating that the foundations and structure as allowed for Option 2 are appropriate but further detailed investigations will be required prior to progressing the design and if additional costs are identified either value engineering will be undertaken or additional funds will be sought.

Implementation

7.18    Implementation dependencies - once the concept design is approved, subsequent design phases can commence.  Demoltion of the Robbies building and pump houses, capping of historic wells, and relocation of the Service Centre would need to occur before settlement of the surplus land sale.

7.19    Implementation timeframe – if the concept design is approved at the June 2016 Board meeting it is expected that Detailed Design would be completed early 2017, consents granted mid-2017 and construction completed mid-2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Fully multi-purpose spaces allowing flexibility of use and a unique design to make the building stand out from its surrounds.

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not contain staffed or other dedicated areas as depicted and also not easily expandable.

8.   Option 3 – Select Neither Design

Option Description

8.1       Under this option the Council would instruct to staff to explore alternate design options using the same Northern most portion of the Council owned land at 199-201 Clarence Street.

8.2       To pursue this approach the Council would need to be seeking a fundamentally different concept design as minor alterations could otherwise be incorporated into subsequent design phases using the concepts presented in option 1 and 2.

Significance

8.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Community consultation on both the sale of land identified as surplus, and the facility design itself has been undertaken to support the process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       The concept designs presented in options 1 and 2 have attempted to address community feedback received during the consultation process.  The extent to which an alternate design would do the same would be entirely dependent on what was proposed/produced).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       The extent to which this option is consistent or otherwise with the Council’s Plans and Policies would be dependent on what was proposed/produced.  It would remain consistent with both the general Council Long Term Plan Level of Service regarding provision of Community Facilities and the specific Council resolution regarding the building of a new community facility at 199-201 Clarence Street.

Financial Implications

8.7       The budget for this project would still be comprised of:

·    $1,000,000 allocated as part of Tranche 1 Community Facilities Rebuild.

·    Internal transfer value for 265m2 of land to be transferred to Transport team.

·    Proceeds from sale of surplus land.

8.8       The affordability/financial implications from both a capital and operating perspective would be entirely dependent on what alternate design was proposed.

Legal Implications

8.9       Transfer and disposal of land has been/will be subject to the Council's Property Disposal Process.  Surplus land will be sold on the open market and consultation pursuant to s138 of the Local Government Act is now complete.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    Exploring alternate design options would certainly add time to the project in the upfront stages and most likely to the overall delivery date.   The extent of the delay (and corresponding cost increase) would be dependent on what is being sought and this would be mitigated by seeking a very clear set of instructions and implementation process.

Implementation

8.11    The implementation dependencies and timeframe would be dependent on what is being sought but would follow the same key steps for options 1 and 2 above i.e. land sale, design finalisation, consenting, procurement and construction.  All else being equal the time incurred on additional concept design work would add directly to the estimated completion date of end of 2017 quoted for options 1 and 2.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would allow additional input if deemed appropriate.

8.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Would delay the project, potentially significantly, and add to the overall cost.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment 1 - Option 1 Provisional Concept

81

b  

Attachment 2 - Indicative Feasibility Design of Option 1 Expanded

88

c  

Attachment 3 - Transport Planning Memorandum

89

d  

Attachment 4 - Option 2 Concept Design

92

e  

Attachment 5 - Map of Land Transfer to Transport

95

f  

Attachment 6 - Surplus Land Sale Consultation Map

96

g  

Attachment 7 - Consultation Report

97

 

 

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

Kent Summerfield

Senior Project Manager

Approved By

John Filsell

David Adamson

Head of Recreation & Sports

General Manager City Services

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 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


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

11.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Youth Development Fund - Application - Rebecca Fairbairn

Reference:

16/576828

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider an application received for funding from the Board's 2015/16 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is $1,150 remaining in the 2015/16 Youth Development Fund for allocation.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Rebecca Fairbairn.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Decline making a grant from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Rebecca Fairbairn towards study and travel costs to the USA.

 

4.   Applicant 1 - Rebecca Fairbairn

4.1       Rebecca Fairbairn has been accepted at the Indiana State University to complete her Master's Degree in Sports Coaching.  She is seeking funding assistance towards her travel and study costs.

4.2       Rebecca, originally from the Waikato area, has been studying in Christchurch for the past three years, completing a Bachelor of Sport Coaching.  During her final year of study last year, she was encouraged to apply to complete her Master's Degree at Indiana State University that has a relationship with the University of Canterbury's sport coaching programme.

4.3       Rebecca's admission to Indiana State University has been approved and she has been offered one of nine graduate assistantships available to prospective students each year.  Studying there, will provide Rebecca with the opportunity to work closely with high performance swim teams on campus.  This course of study will take her through to the end of 2018.

4.4       Rebecca's main interest is in swimming having been a competitive swimmer for more than twelve years.  Since starting at University, Rebecca has concentrated more on coaching opportunities and has not only coached swimming but also netball and hockey.  She is currently the Head Swim coach for Canterbury Water polo.  She has also been working as a personal trainer.

4.5       In the future, Rebecca hopes to become one of New Zealand's top swimming coaches.  Her intention upon returning to Christchurch/New Zealand is to develop a swim programme that can be offered in schools and develop high performance teams.

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

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$1,000

Travel and Medical Insurance

$1,000

Course Fee

$6,000

Accommodation and Living Expenses

$5,000

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$12,000

Amount Applied For

$3,500

 

4.7       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

4.8       Rebecca has received funding already from Te Kuiti Rotary Club and the Lion Foundation, and has an application pending to the Riccarton Rotary Club.  She is also looking to add to her fundraising by her income from working as a personal trainer and coach as well as holding garage sales and running an OpShop in Te Kuiti.

4.9       Although there is no doubt that this is a fantastic opportunity for Rebecca and she is a very deserving candidate, staff are recommending that this application is declined.  This is consistent with recent Board decisions for Youth Development Fund applications where the applicants are looking to base themselves overseas for an extended period of time and there is no guarantee of their return to the local area.

 

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

Marie Byrne

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

12.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Youth Development Fund - Application - Phoenix Athletics Club Members

Reference:

16/612122

Contact:

Karla Gunby

karla.gunby@ccc.govt.nz

941 6705

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider funding applications received from Conor Bennett, Ziana Bennett, Tristan Bennett and Sherida Wilson from the Board's 2015/16 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $1,150 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider applications for funding from Conor Bennett, Ziana Bennett, Tristan Bennett and Sherida Wilson.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $250 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Conor Bennett towards the DownUnder Athletics Meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to14 July 2016.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $250 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Ziana Bennett towards the DownUnder Athletics Meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to 14 July 2016.

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $250 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Tristan Bennett towards the DownUnder Athletics Meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to 14 July 2016.

4.         Approve the making of a grant of $250 from its 2015/16 Youth Development Fund to Sherida Wilson towards the DownUnder Athletics Meet at the Gold Coast, Australia, from 6 to 14 July 2016.

 

4.   Applicants

4.1       From 6 to 14 July 2016, 13 athletes and seven support crew from the Phoenix Athletics Club in Christchurch, will be travelling to the DownUnder Athletics Meet at the Gold Coast. 

4.2       Four athletes from the Club, who all live in Halswell, have been asked to represent the Club at this event.  They are Conor Bennett 17 years old, Zinan Bennett 15 years old, Tristan Bennett 13 years old and Sherida Wilson 15 years old.

4.3       The Club wishes to expose the young athletes to international competition to expand their horizons, strengthen their characters and inspire them to new levels.  These young people then become mentors and coaches of the next generation of young athletes. 

4.4       Other members of the team are also applying to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board and the Selwyn District Council.  They have had $500 approved from the Lions Club of Halswell. 

4.5       Senior athletes are currently selling raffle tickets to raise funds and have part-time jobs to support the trip. 

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for each individual:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return flight

$614

Accommodation 8 nights

$550

Share of vehicle hire

$183

Event registration and levies

$160

Uniform and gear bag

$150

Food allowance and fuel contribution

$550

 

 

                                                                                            Total per athlete

$2,207

 

4.7    This is the first time these applicants have applied for funding.

 

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

Karla Gunby

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

13.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Applications - Hornby Community Care Trust/Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust/Halswell Hall Incorporated/Halswell School/Springs Community Early Learning Centre

Reference:

16/609488

Contact:

Karla Gunby

karla.gunby@ccc.govt.nz

941 6705

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00055396

Hornby Community Care Trust

Purchase of defibrillator for the Centre

$3,789

00055479

Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust

Purchasing curtains and a new sign 

$1,625

00054824

Halswell Hall Incorporated.

Upgrade kitchen in Halswell Hall

$20,355

00055087

Halswell School

Electronic basketball hoops and backboards

$5,000

00054966

Springs Community Early Learning Centre

Replacement of large playground equipment

$5,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider applications for funding from the Hornby Community Care Trust, Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust, Halswell Hall Incorporated, Halswell School and Springs Community Early Learning Centre.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $3,789 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Hornby Community Care Trust towards the purchase of a defibrillator for the Hornby Community Care Centre.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $1,625 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to the Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust towards signage and curtains.

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $7,000 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Halswell Hall Incorporated towards its kitchen upgrade. 

4.         Approve the making of a grant of $1,000 from its 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund to Halswell School towards electronic basketball hoops and backboards. 

5.         Approve the making of a grant of $4,000 from its Discretionary Response Fund to Springs Community Early Learning Centre towards the replacement of large playground equipment.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$130,000

$109,791

$21,769

$4,355

 

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

4.3       The attached Decision Matrices provide detailed information on the applications.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Application Decision Matrix -  Hornby Community Care Trust

120

b  

Riccarton Wigram - Location of Defibrillators

121

c  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Application Decision Matrix -  Hei Hei Broomfield Community Development Trust

122

d  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Application Decision Matrix -  Halswell Hall

123

e  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Application Decision Matrix - Halswell School

124

f  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board 2015/16 Discretionary Response Fund - Application Decision Matrix -  Springs Community Early Learning Centre

125

 

 

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

Karla Gunby

Marie Byrne

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 

 

14.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report- June 2016

Reference:

16/368401

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Community Board Related Activities

1.1.1   Riccarton/Wigram Community and Youth Service Awards, Wednesday 29 June 2016 at 5pm, The Tea House, Riccarton Racecourse.

1.1.2   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Confirmation) meeting followed by a Seminar, Tuesday 5 July 2016 at 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.1.3   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board (Business) meeting, Tuesday 19 July 2016 at 4pm, Upper Riccarton Library.

1.2       Update from Karla Gunby - Community Development Adviser

1.2.1   I am attending the Social Traders Social Enterprise Masters Conference on 7 and 8 June 2016 in Melbourne to assist with the development of social enterprises in Christchurch.

1.2.2   I am assisting Sockburn School and Mene Solutions with the community consultation and any contacts with Council in regard to the development of the new Wigram School in Wigram Skies. 

1.3       Update from Marie Byrne - Community Development Adviser

1.3.1   I attended the reopening of the Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple in Harakeke Street in May.  This was timed to coincide with the Buddha's Birthday celebrations.  Along with a happiness and peace prayer ceremony, there were various multicultural performances and various stalls including health checks and food.

1.3.2   I attended a showcase of the work of the Oak Development Trust.  Housing New Zealand has given a further year's lease for the Riccarton-West Community Garden site in Peverel Street, with the right of renewal for a further year.

1.3.3   Jenny Watters from Environment Canterbury advises that physical work including stream renewal starts in the Riccarton Stream in Paeroa Reserve with community planting bees planned once these works have been completed. 

1.4       Update from Emily Toase - Community Recreation Adviser

1.4.1   I started in the role on 23 May 2016 and have been using this time to get acquainted with the Council’s workings and the Riccarton/Wigram ward.  I have been meeting some of the key sports and recreation contacts in the ward.

1.5       Update from Community Board Adviser

1.5.1   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board – Submissions Committee – Minutes of 24 May 2016

Attached are the minutes of the Submissions Committee meeting of 24 May 2016 held to consider a Board response on the Draft Business Improvement District (BID) Policy.

Subsequently, the Board Chairperson on behalf of the Board, provided the attached feedback on the Draft BID Policy.

 

Staff Recommendation

1.      That the minutes of the Board’s Submissions Committee meeting of 24 May 2016, be received.

2.      That the action of the Board Chairperson in providing feedback on behalf of the Board on the Council’s Draft Business Improvement District Policy, be confirmed.

2.   Consultation Calendar

Project Name

Consultation dates

Christchurch Speed Limit Review

31/05/2016 – 21/06/2016 5:00pm

Major Cycle Route – Uni Cycle – Proposed Changes to Hinau, Miro and Totara Streets

27/05/2016 – 07/06/2016 5:00pm

3.   Funding Update

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

 

4.   Staff Recommendation

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 24 May 2016

129

b  

Board Feedback - Draft Business Improvement District Policy

130

c  

Funding Update June 2016

132

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Dow

Marie Byrne

Karla Gunby

Matthew McLintock

Community Board Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Community Development Advisor

Community Governance Manager

Approved By

Matthew McLintock

Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 June 2016

 


 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

14 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.