Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 19 September 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Andrea Cummings

Tim Baker

David East

Tim Sintes

Linda Stewart

Stan Tawa

Glenn Livingstone

 

 

13 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Croucher

Community Board Advisor

941 5305

peter.croucher@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

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

Role of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

 

Chair

Andrea Cummings

Membership

Tim Baker (Deputy Chair), Tim Sintes, Linda Stewart, Stan Tawa, David East,

Glenn Livingstone

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

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

 

The role of the community board is to:

 

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Objectives

For the 2013-2016 Triennium

 

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

 

§  Promote appropriate consultation and community communication on Coastal Hazards

§  Promote appropriate consultation and community communication on future use and ongoing maintenance of the Residential Red Zone and advocacy to external agencies.

 

§  Promote appropriate consultation and community communication on Infrastructure rebuilding in the east and advocacy to external agencies. Projects will fall under categories of water, waste, road and bridge repairs and developments and bus routes.

§  Promote appropriate consultation and community communication on Facility Rebuilds during and after their construction.

§  Provide and support opportunities for the community to: get together, have fun, celebrate, recreate, support each other

§  Highlight within the community, across the city and further afield as practicable, the positive

§  strengths of the East.

Note: This includes specific named events and projects

 

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 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   

STAFF REPORTS

C       6.       Burwood-Pegasus Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications .................. 13

C       7.       Parklands Bowling Club - Approval of New Development Plans for the Parklands Sports and Community Recreation Hub...................................................................... 19

C       8.       Request for Street Tree Removal - 3 Falconridge Place............................................. 41

C       9.       Marking of existing Aston Drive Bus Stops................................................................. 57

C       10.     Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Burwood / Pegasus.......................... 65

C       11.     Proposed Remediation of Existing Bus Stops Concerning Road Markings, Layout Alterations and Authorisations- Burwood / Pegasus................................................. 75

C       12.     Marine Parade Proposed Parking Restrictions (including electric vehicle charger parking restrictions)...................................................................................................... 87

C       13.     Hardy Street Proposed P3 Parking Restriction........................................................... 93

C       14.     Joy Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions........................................................... 99

C       15.     Burwood Road Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (Burwood Hospital).............. 105

C       16.     Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street............................................................................................................................ 111

B       17.     Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report.................................................. 117

B       18.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 118

B       19.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 118

B       20.     Valedictory Speeches ................................................................................................. 118

 

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 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 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held on Monday, 5 September 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Vanessa Taylor, Advocate on behalf of Canterbury Independent Advocacy Service will assist Vera Hewison and Dennis Hewison to bring their concerns to the Board about the safety of road crossings in New Brighton. 

 

4.2

Wayne Eden will speak on behalf of the Parklands Bowling Club in support of the recommendation in the report at Item 7.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

 

Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 5 September 2016

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

 

Andrea Cummings

Tim Baker

David East

Linda Stewart

Glenn Livingstone

 

 

2 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Croucher

Community Board Advisor

941 5305

peter.croucher@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

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00118

That the apologies for absence received from Stan Tawa and Tim Sintes be accepted. 

Andrea Cummings/Tim Baker                                                                                                                                Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Linda Stewart declared a conflict of interest in Item 13 and took no part in the discussion or decision making. 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00119

That the minutes of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held on Monday, 15 August 2016 be confirmed.

Glenn Livingstone/Tim Baker                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence

       6.1          Burwood East Residents Association

                         A letter was received from the Burwood East Residents Association regarding the non re‑establishment of previously planted green areas post Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team  repair works.

 

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00120

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board requests that staff:

1.            Provide information to the Board explaining why the island of the Avondale/New Brighton Road/Bassett Street roundabout and the berm on the north west corner of Bassett Street and New Brighton Road have not been reinstated as they were pre Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) works; and

 

2.            Provide the Community Board with a planting plan for these two areas. 

Glenn Livingstone/Andrea Cummings                                                                                                                Carried

 

The Board agreed that the second item of correspondence be dealt with later in the meeting. 

 

8.   Breezes Road - School Patrol at Haeata Community Campus

 

Board Comment

The Board considered a report seeking its recommendation to the Council to approve a school patrol on Breezes Road outside the Haeata Community Campus.

The Board agreed to recommend that a school patrol be approved to improve pedestrian safety, however also decided to recommend that the Council consider funding a signalised crossing as soon as possible due to the projected size of the school in 2017, as four schools will be merging together at this site.  The four schools that are merging are Avondale Primary, Aranui Primary, Wainoni Primary, and Aranui High School.  Other schools in Christchurch of a similar school roll size have signalised crossings. 

A Council citywide review of all school patrols will occur in 2017 relative to the restructure, closure and renaming of schools in Christchurch however the Board note that this report will not address additional safety requirements and recommendations.  

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board recommends that Council approve:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 ( Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Haeata Community Campus to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the zebra pedestrian crossing at Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 16 metres northwest of its intersection with Hampshire Street.

 

 

 

Community Board Recommended BPCB/2016/00121

Part A

That the Council approve:

1.         In pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 ( Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Haeata Community Campus to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols at the zebra pedestrian crossing at Breezes Road, located at a point more or less 16 metres northwest of its intersection with Hampshire Street.

2.         Installation of a signalised crossing for Haeata Community Campus be included in the next Long Term Plan budget or from other available funds.

Andrea Cummings/Glenn Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

9.   Shirley Tennis Club Variation to Lease

 

Community Board Recommended BPCB/2016/00122

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve a variation to the current lease area for Shirley Tennis Club Incorporated at Richmond Park, currently being 6021 m2 of recreation reserve described as Reserve 4804 held in CFR CB657/53, to include an additional area of 1296m2 to construct two tennis courts on the land described as being part Lot 1-2 Deposited Plan 11905 being 2372m2 approximately held in Trust for Public Recreation (shown as Area F in Attachment A to this report), subject to:

             a.         Public notification under the Reserves Act 1977 being completed and no sustainable              objections received.

2.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation’s Delegation, pending the outcome of advertising, give consent to the variation of the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b) and (c) of the Reserves Act 1977.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including but not limited to:

a.         In the event that there are objections through the notification process under section 119 of the Reserves Act that cannot be resolved and need to be determined through a Hearing, appoint a Hearings Panel comprised of an independent commissioner(s) that has the power to receive , consider, and determine any objections by rejection or upholding them.

b.         To conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

Andrea Cummings/Glenn Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

 

 

 

10. Proposed Licence Agreement - Bickerton Reserve - Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00123

Part C

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolved:

1.         To enter into a licence with the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust pursuant to section 54 of The Reserves Act 1977, for a period of up to five years, over that part of land described as being approximately 980 square meters at 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni, as depicted in attachment A, subject to:

a.         public notification under the Reserves Act 1977 being completed and no sustainable objections being received.

 Member Stewart/Member Baker                                                                                                                     Carried

 

Community Board Recommended BPCB/2016/00124

Part A

That the Council:

1.         In its capacity as a delegate of the Minister of Conservation, pending the outcome of the public notification, give consent to the granting of a licence agreement over that part of land described as being approximately 980 square meters at 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni, being part of Lot 1 DP 10020 contained in certificate of title CB420/257 in accordance with section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including but not limited to:

a.         In the event that there are objections through the notification process under section 119 of the Reserves Act that cannot be resolved and need to be determined through a Hearing, appoint a Hearings Panel comprised of an independent commissioner(s) that has the power to receive, consider, and determine any objections by rejection or upholding them.

b.         To conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

Member Stewart/Member Baker                                                                                                                        Carried

 

11. Shortland Playground - Proposal to Revoke Previous Decisions of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00125

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolves to:

1.         a.         Revoke resolutions 17. (a), (b), (c), (d) on the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting minutes of 16 September 2013;

b.         Revoke resolution 17.2 on the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting minutes of 22 April 2014.

2.         Approve the landscape concept plan for the redevelopment of the play equipment at Shortland Playground Reserve.

Andrea Cummings/Linda Stewart                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

12. Proposed Road Names - Prestons Subdivision

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00126

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board approves the following names in the Prestons stages one and two subdivision:

·        Parawai Street

·        Karere Avenue

·        Weruweru Street

·        Dunlops Road

Tim Baker/David East                                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

13. Proposed Removal and Replacement of Street Trees on Bridge Street

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00127

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board approves the removal and replacement of the trees located on Bridge Street between the intersections of Estuary Road and Marine Parade.

David East/Andrea Cummings                                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

14. Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report

 

The information in the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report was noted and received.  Staff were requested to arrange a meeting of the Submissions Committee to consider the proposed amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 5.21pm.

The meeting recommenced at 5.59pm.

 

7.   Staff Briefings

         7.1          SCIRT - Pages Road Kerb and Channel and Footpath Repair Work

                                      Ross Herrett, Infrastructure Rebuild Liaison Manager, briefed the Board on Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) works currently being undertaken on Pages Road between Shuttle Drive to Rowan Avenue and Rowan Avenue to Anzac Drive. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 6.28pm.

The meeting recommenced at 6.38pm.

 

6.   Correspondence Continued

 

6.2       The Mayor – 2016/17 Annual Plan

             An item of correspondence was received from the Mayor, Lianne Dalziel regarding the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board’s submissions on the Christchurch City Draft Annual Plan 2016-17 and amended Long Term Plan 2015-2015.

             The Board agreed to write a letter in response. 

 

Community Board Resolved BPCB/2016/00128

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board receives the information in the correspondence report dated 05 September 2016. 

Linda Stewart/Andrea Cummings                                                                                                                        Carried

 

Glenn Livingstone departed at 7.02pm. 

15. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

There was no information exchanged at this meeting.

 

16. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 7.45pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Andrea Cummings

Chairperson

   


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

6.        Burwood-Pegasus Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/970398

Contact:

Katie MacDonald

katie.macdonald@ccc.govt.nz

941 5325

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to consider applications for 2016 Neighbourhood Week funding and to set in place a process should any late applications need to be considered.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolves that:

1.         The applications as set out below are considered:

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

New Brighton Community Gardens Trust

Community Open Day

300 +

$200

Gina Preece

BBQ

30

$105

Wainoni/Avonside Community Services Trust – Betty Chapman

Light Tea

30 +

$100

New Brighton Catholic School

Morning Tea

50-60

$100

Frances Raine

Street BBQ

40 +

$140

Neighbourhood Support Group,  Kirsten Place, Ronald George Place and Oroa Lane – Peter Leversedge

BBQ

40

$100

Anne Visser

Neighbours BBQ

20 +

$60

Samuel Reid

BBQ

25

$30

Julie Ziolo-Roberts

Street BBQ

26

$75

Tayanita Scott

BBQ & Mr Whippy

40

$140

Woodchester Survivors – Celia Stewart

BBQ plus sporting activities

30 -  35

$115

Queenspark Drive, Rothesay Road, Anglesea Ave Neighbourhood Support Group – Raymond Eder

BBQ

32

$75

Anglesea South Neighbourhood Support – Patrick Brandon

Community BBQ, light meal  and community cricket

30 - 40

$125

Sea Eagles and Manly Place Neighbourhood Support Group – Gillian Kney

BBQ, Picnic

50 - 60

$111

Briar Cook

Afternoon Tea / Garden Party

50

$100

Shirley Volunteer Plunket Group – Vicky Klaus

Information and Community Day

300

$275

Copperfield Close Neighbourhood Support Group - Nicola Ellis

Street BBQ

26

$75

Waitakiri Primary School

Community and Neighbourhood Gathering

1,500

$1,000 (subject to discussion)

 

Note: The staff recommendations total $2928, with $572 remaining as unspent funding.

2.         Any unspent funding from the Burwood-Pegasus 2016 Neighbourhood Week funds be used to support local neighbourhood events in the Coastal-Burwood wards for the  remainder of the 2016/17 year.

3.         Local neighbourhood events in the Coastal-Burwood wards identified as fitting the use of the 2016 Neighbourhood Week remaining funds be processed and assessed in the same manner as 2016 Neighbourhood Week applications.

4.         Delegated authority to allocate the remaining 2016 Neighbourhood Week funds be given to the chair of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board and reported back to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Neighbourhood Week is a dedicated week in which individuals and groups are encouraged to get together and get to know one another locally.  This year Neighbourhood Week is to be held from 28 October to 6 November 2016.  Applications for funding closed on 19 August 2016.

4.2       Local community groups, including residents' associations and neighbourhood support groups, have been sent information inviting them to apply for the Neighbourhood Week funding that has been allocated by the Board.

4.3       A matrix outlining the applications and staff recommendations is attached (attachment A), along with the Neighbourhood Week Guidelines (attachment B) that accompany the application details.

4.4       By the closing date, 18 applications had been received.  The applications were sorted and assessed to ensure that they met the guidelines for the Neighbourhood Week events, and staff recommended an amount to be allocated to each application.  In making the recommendations staff have endeavoured to maintain consistency over the allocation recommendations according to the amounts applied for and the number of people estimated to be attending the events.

4.5       Organisers of events that are scheduled to take place in a public place situated within an alcohol ban area, will be notified of the ban requirements.

4.6       At its meeting on 1 August 2016, the Board allocated $3,500 for Neighbourhood Week events in 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Burwood/Pegasus Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Matrix

16

b

Burwood/Pegasus Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Guidelines

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Katie MacDonald - Governance Support Officer

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Burwood/Pegasus

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

7.        Parklands Bowling Club - Approval of New Development Plans for the Parklands Sports and Community Recreation Hub

Reference:

16/957962

Contact:

Kathy Jarden

Kathy.Jarden@ccc.govt.nz

941-8203

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve, on behalf of the Council as Lessor, the building development plans proposed by Parklands Bowling Club Incorporated, the Lessee, on behalf of the Parklands Sports and Community Recreation Hub, a joint venture between Parklands Bowling Club and Parklands Rugby Club.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by staff assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Approves the building development plans proposed by Parklands Bowling Club Incorporated at 30 Chadbury Street also known as Arthur Adcock Memorial Reserve, held as recreation reserve in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

2.         Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to advise Parklands Bowling Club Incorporated of the Community Board’s approval of the plans subject to obtaining the necessary resource and building consents for the redevelopment.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the proposed plans (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Not approve the proposed plans

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     An improved pavilion and community facility for members of the sporting clubs, the residents of Parklands and neighbouring communities.

·     The former Freeville School buildings are of a better design and appearance than that originally proposed for the site.

·     Repurposing of existing buildings which brings financial savings to the Club and environmental and sustainable benefits to the community.

·     Future planning for increased recreational activities like tennis, basketball and futsal.

·     A Club-led development which will see year-round use of facilities at no development cost to Council.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     A larger area of the reserve is covered by site development.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       A report to the Burwood Pegasus Community Board on 15 June 2015 approved the granting of a new lease to Parklands Bowling Club Incorporated and also approved the building of new club rooms and storage.  The lease has a final expiry of 31 August 2048.  The approved plans can be viewed in Attachment A.

5.2       The Parklands Bowling Club and the Parklands Rugby Club have been working together over the last three years and developed a joint venture partnership combining sporting amenities in the area. 

5.3       The Clubs formed a joint Building and Land Development Committee (the “Committee”) that now has an opportunity to acquire two buildings from the former Freeville school site.  The buildings must be removed from the school site by the end of December 2016.  The Committee will acquire the buildings at no direct cost for the purchase of the buildings however they are required to fund the removal and relocation costs.

5.4       The Committee would like to relocate these buildings within their leased area, refer to Attachment B.

5.5       Council officers have met with the Committee and are supportive of these new building plans.

5.6       The lease requires that written consent be obtained from the Lessor for any improvements made to the site.

5.7       As the building plans have now changed from that originally approved on 15th June 2015, officers are now seeking the approval of the Community Board on behalf of the Lessor (Council) to the new proposal as shown in Attachments C and D.

5.8       The Lessee, Parklands Bowling Club Incorporated, is responsible for obtaining all necessary building and resource consents required for the demolition of their existing buildings and relocation and fit-out of the new buildings including all building and development costs.

The Way Forward

5.9       A “Summary of Intentions” of the Parklands Sports and Community Recreation Hub (the joint venture between Bowling and Rugby) may be found in Attachment E appended to this report.

5.10    Long-term plans see the gradual development of a multi-purpose court for futsal, tennis and basketball and pistes for petanque.  There is an expressed desire for utilisation of an additional area of the reserve to develop a second court if funding permits and the Council agrees to the leasing of that area of land at a later point in time.  The staged development plans are found in Attachment F and a view showing both courts may be found in Attachment C.

 

6.   Option 1 – Approve the Proposed Plans (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approval by Burwood Pegasus Community Board to the proposed building plans as presented in Attachment C and D.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Members of Parklands Bowling Club and Parklands Rugby Club are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to support the community by providing facilities that will encourage and facilitate the growth of members of the sporting clubs and encourage other recreational activities in the eastern suburbs.  Their views are supportive of the new building development plans.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – Staff time covered by operational budgets.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No cost to Council

6.9       Funding source – not applicable, all costs are responsibility of Lessee

Legal Implications

6.10    The Deed of Lease requires that Lessor consent be obtained prior to any building works or modifications are undertaken in the leased area.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    There is a positive risk to the Community Board’s reputation in approving the new development plans.

6.12    Risk – Reputational/Image - positive media promotion of the project.  This will result in favourable coverage of the proposed redevelopment, increased awareness of the activities of the Club which could result in more participation and membership in the clubs as well as a positive story for the eastern suburbs.

6.12.1 Treatment: The Community Board can take-on the positive effects of the risk; i.e. support and publicity of the project by the local Community Board members.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Upon resolution the Committee can apply for the necessary building and resource consents required for the development.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – Officers will grant landowner’s consent to the Committee within 3 working days of the Community Board decision. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·     An improved pavilion and community facility for members of the sporting clubs, the residents of Parklands and neighbouring communities.

·     The former Freeville School buildings are of a better design and appearance than that originally proposed for the site.

·     Repurposing of existing buildings which brings financial savings to the Club and environmental and sustainable benefits to the community.

·     Future planning for increased recreational activities like netball and futsal.

·     A club-led development which will see year-round use of facilities at no development cost to Council.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A larger area of the reserve is covered by site development.

7.   Option 2 – Not approve the proposed plans

Option Description

7.1       Not approve the building development plans.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Members of Parklands Bowling Club and Parklands Rugby Club are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to support the community by providing facilities that will encourage and facilitate the growth of members of the sporting clubs and encourage other recreational activities in the eastern suburbs.  Their views would not be supportive of returning to the original proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Council has undertaken as a level of service to support community based organisations and networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport in Christchurch

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – not approving the plans would not support this level of service.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – amending the levels of service

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – No direct cost other than staff time which is covered in operational budgets.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.9       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications in not approving the recommendation.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    By not approving the proposed building development plans there would be some negative uncertainty in the reputation of the Community Board by not achieving levels of service set out by the Council.

7.12    Risk – Reputational/Image caused by Community Board not approving plans.  This will (may) result in minor negative short term media coverage to the City and local neighbourhoods.

7.12.1 Treatment: The Community Board and Council would be required to tolerate the risk and the impact to the local community in not approving the plans. 

7.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board decision

7.14    Implementation timeframe – staff would confirm outcome to the Lessee within 3 working days.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no determined advantages in exercising this option.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An area of reserve set aside for organised sporting and recreational activities not being used to its full potential.

·   Loss of support and confidence in the local Community Board.

·   Decline in membership numbers of the clubs involved.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

BE114 - Parklands Bowling Club - Site Plan and Elevation April 2015

25

b

BE114 - Survey Drawing  Parklands Bowling Club Inc Lease Area RPS617-39

29

c

BE114 - Parklands - Proposed Site Development

30

d

BE114 - Parklands - Site Elevation

31

e

BE114 - Parklands Project Summary of Intentions 24 August 2016

32

f

BE114 - Parklands - Staged Masterplan

39

 

 

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

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

8.        Request for Street Tree Removal - 3 Falconridge Place

Reference:

16/652132

Contact:

Craig Taylor

craig.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

941 8867

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve/decline the removal of the tree located on the berm outside 3 Falconridge Place, Shirley.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request by the resident and property owner, Mr Gary Smith of 3 Falconridge Place, Shirley for the removal of the Plane tree outside his property on the following grounds:

·   The damage to the lawn and berm being created by the roots.

·   The incorrect species of tree was planted due to the eventual potential size the tree will grow too.

·   The tree will eventually outgrow its location. 

·   Future potential damage to the utility pipes at 3 Falconridge Place.

·   Future potential damage to the driveway at 3 Falconridge Place.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by a score of 14.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

         That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board approves the removal of the Plane tree located on the berm outside 3 Falconridge Place, Shirley and to replant with a suitable tree species.

 

 

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: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2             The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Decline the request to remove the tree.

·   Option 2 - Retain the tree and carry out root pruning and root barrier installation.

·   Option 3 - Approve the request to remove the tree and replant with a more suitable tree species (preferred option).

 

4.3             Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1            The advantages of the preferred option include:

·   Reduced cost to CCC/ratepayers for future potential damage to the private and/or council infrastructure (cost details provided below 4.3.2).

·   50% cost sharing between CCC and the resident for tree removal.

·   Resident satisfaction with outcome.

·   The surrounding community is supportive of the tree being removed and replaced (eleven respondents were in support of removing the tree).

·   No respondents were in favour of tree retention.

·   Replanting will enhance the streetscape.

 

4.3.2            The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The tree is healthy and structurally sound and is not currently a threat to public safety.

·     The tree has an amenity value to the local area/community.

·     The removal of a healthy tree could set a president for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees.

 

Cost comparison of options

 

Option 1

Decline the request to remove the tree.

Option 2

Retain the tree and carry out root pruning and root barrier installation.

Option 3 (preferred option)

Approve the request to remove the tree and replant with a more suitable tree species

Cost of option to CCC

$1842 in repairs every 3 years

$800 (one off cost)

$577.71 (one off cost)

Maintenance costs

$41.75/ year

$208.77 / year

$96 / year for 3 years (young tree maintenance)

Comments

High cost to CCC/ Ratepayer due to likely repairs from tree damaging infrastructure.

CCC cost of responding to resident concerns not included in above figures

High ongoing maintenance costs due to risk of tree being destabilised due to root pruning and localised die back of branches creating health and safety concerns.

Future potential cost as root regrowth and expansion continues

More suitable tree species means no ongoing repairs required hence cost saving to CCC/ Ratepayer

 

Consultation

4.4       Consultation on Falconridge Place – Request for Street Tree Removal was undertaken from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016.

4.5       A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

·   At the close of consultation, eleven submissions were received by CCC. Eleven submissions were in support of the tree removal, no submissions were received in support of retaining the tree.

 

5.   Context/Background

Initial communication

5.1       A request for the removal of one Plane tree was received from Mr Gary Smith, property owner, 3 Falconridge Place by the CCC.

5.2       CCC Eastern Area Arborist, Craig Taylor met the residents on 26 Feb 2016 to discuss their concerns and the long term options for the tree and the future potential damage the tree will cause.

5.3       The tree was inspected by the CCC Eastern Area Arborist and was deemed to be healthy and structurally sound at the time of inspection. It was noted however that the tree will eventually outgrow its current location. No current damage was noted except to a small hairline crack in the kerbing.

5.4       The tree is a London Plane (Platanus acerifolia) tree ID 103815 which the CCC tree asset data indicates was planted in 2003 as part of the sub division planting design by the developer.

5.5       The tree is approx. 16 years in age and is 12m in height. The assessment found that the subject tree could potentially have a useful life expectancy of at least another 30+ years.  However, the life expectancy of the tree is likely to be reduced by site constraints due to the narrow width of the garden berm which the tree is located. I would expect the tree to grow to a height of 16m+ in this location.

5.6       The subject tree is located within a garden blip 2m in width at its widest point and narrowing towards where the driveway meets the carriageway. The tree does not impede the road. However, roots from the tree has caused minor cracking to the kerb and channel.

5.7       The tree was assessed using the table below and the subject tree scored 2 (good) for health and 2 (good) for form giving an overall condition rating for the tree as 2 (good).

5.8       The tree currently shows no obvious defects that would affect the structural integrity of the tree.

5.9       The overall condition of a tree is assessed using the table below:

 

             Condition                  Score

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 

·    The score relates to the health and form of a tree.

·    Form includes the structural integrity (the ability to hold together under load) and the shape of the tree.

·    Health (vigour and vitality) is generally measured through branch growth increments, foliage colour/discolouration, bud size etc.

·    The overall condition rating for a tree is calculated by taking the highest score from either health or form to give you the overall assessment rating e.g. if a tree scores 2 (good) for health and 4 (poor) for form then the condition rating will be 4 (poor) overall for the tree.


 

 

6.   Option Description: Decline the request to remove the tree.

Option Description

6.1       Decline the request to remove the tree.

Significance

6.2       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

Eleven submissions were received by the CCC. Eleven submissions were in support of the tree removal.

6.4.1   Feedback received in support of the removal included the following:

·    They are a park tree not a sub division tree. They do break up pavements.

·    Will there be another tree planted in its place? Perhaps of a more suitable height.

 

6.5       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

     No submissions were received which supported the retention of the tree.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil.

6.8       Tree maintenance costs - $208.77 every five years.

6.9       Ongoing/reoccurring costs -

Kerb and channel repair

$151.25 per meter x 2m

$302.50

Driveway repair

$190 per meter square x 4m2

$760.00

Roots removed and turf laid

10m2

$250.00

Storm water repair

$400.00

$400.00

CCC Administration

$65 per hr

$130.00

Total initial costs

 

$1842.50 + GST

 

*These costs will be an approx. recurring cost for council every 3 years if the tree remains as the tree grows and further damage occurs.

 

6.10    Funding source - Street Tree Maintenance (OPEX) budget for continued maintenance and ongoing costs.

Legal Implications

6.11    The tree is not a protected tree and the arboriculture assessment concludes that it is not a threat to public safety currently. However, an application to prune or remove the tree may be made to the District Court under The Property Law Act 2007 and the said Court can order the pruning or removal of a tree under the said Act.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Council will continue to manage the tree as part of its Street Tree Maintenance programme in accordance with its Activity Management Plans and Levels of Service, and, in accordance with industry best practice.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages

6.15    This is not the preferred option because:

·     Damage will occur due to the trees location and proximity to council infrastructure such as kerb and channel and storm water.

·     Damage will occur due to the trees location and its proximity to private infrastructure such as the driveway, lawn and storm water outlet.

·     Increased costs to the ratepayers and CCC as damage occurs

·     Eleven respondent were in support of removing the tree.

·     No respondents were in favour of tree retention.

·         Council may receive continuing requests and complaints regarding the tree.

     

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·      There is no loss of amenity value to the local residents.

 

7.   Option Description: Retain the tree and carry out root pruning and root barrier installation.

Option Description

7.1       Retain the tree and carry out root pruning and root barrier installation to minimise the potential damage to private and CCC infrastructure.

Significance

7.2       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

      Eleven submissions were received by the CCC. Eleven submissions were in support of the tree removal.

7.4.1   Feedback received in support of the removal included the following:

·    They are a park tree not a sub division tree. They do break up pavements.

·    Will there be another tree planted in its place? Perhaps of a more suitable height.

 

7.5       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

     No submissions were received which supported the retention of the tree.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is consistent with CCC’s Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Approx. $800.00 to carry out root pruning and root barrier installation.

7.8       Tree maintenance - Tree maintenance is currently $208.77 every five years. Maintenance would need to be increased from 5 years to 1 year. The reason for the increase in the maintenance term is due to the removal of roots because:

·    The tree may become destabilised as the tree canopy becomes larger (creating a larger sail area) and there will be minimal structural roots supporting the tree. The tree will be required to be regularly monitored.

·    Localised die back of branches will occur. The localised die back will require removal on health and safety grounds.

7.9       Ongoing Costs – As per section 7.8 of this report plus administrative costs to the CCC.

 

7.10    Funding source - Street Tree Maintenance (OPEX) budget for continued maintenance and ongoing costs. Street Tree Maintenance (CAPEX) budget for root pruning and root barrier installation.

Legal Implications

7.11    The tree is not a protected tree and the arboriculture assessment concludes that it is not a threat to public safety currently. However, an application to prune or remove the tree may be made to the District Court under The Property Law Act 2007 and the said Court can order the pruning or removal of a tree under the said Act.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    Council will continue to manage the tree as part of its street tree maintenance programme in accordance with its Activity Management Plans and Levels of Service, however root pruning to this extent would not be in accordance with industry best practice, recognised or accepted practices for tree management.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.14    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    This is not the preferred option because:

·     Currently the tree is healthy and structurally sound. Removing the root mass around the periphery could potentially have long term implications for tree stability and health.

·     Localised die back would require managing and monitoring on an annual basis.

·     Increased costs to the ratepayers and CCC.

·     Damage may still occur long term due to new root growth and as expansion continues.

·     Eleven respondent were in support of removing the tree.

·     No respondents were in favour of tree retention.

·       Council may receive continuing requests and complaints regarding the tree.

·       This is not in alignment with industry best practice, recognised or accepted practices    for tree management.

 

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     Future potential damage will be reduced.

·     There is no loss of amenity value to the local residents.

8.   Option 3 – Remove and replant (preferred).

Option Description

              8.1        Remove the Plane tree and replant with a suitable tree species (preferred).

Significance

8.2          The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

      Eleven submissions were received by the CCC. Eleven submissions were in support of the tree removal.

8.4.1   Feedback received in support of the removal included the following:

·    They are a park tree not a sub division tree. They do break up pavements.

·    Will there be another tree planted in its place? Perhaps of a more suitable height.

 

8.5       Consultation ran from Friday 3 June to Friday 17 June 2016. While the consultation officially closed on Friday 17 June late submissions were still accepted up until close of business on Monday 20 June 2016. A total of 18 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to Falconridge Place.

     No submissions were received which supported the retention of the tree.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation - 50% costs are to be shared between the resident and the CCC for the tree removal and stump grinding only.

Tree removal and stump ground

$631.42

Total costs

$631.42 + GST

Resident contribution (50% of removal and stump grinding cost)

$315.71 + GST

 

8.7       Tree planting and maintenance costs –             

Tree, tree planting and 3 years maintenance

 

$550.00

Total costs

$550.00 + GST

 

 

              8.8      Funding source - Street Tree Maintenance (CAPEX) budget for 50% council contribution for removal and stump grinding. Street Tree Maintenance (CAPEX) replanting. Street Tree Maintenance (OPEX) for 3 years maintenance.

CCC contribution (50% of removal and stump grinding cost)

$315.71

Tree, tree planting and 3 years maintenance

$550.00

Total cost to CCC

$865.71 +GST

 

Legal Implications

8.9       The tree is not a protected tree and the arboriculture assessment concludes that it is not a threat to public safety currently. However, an application to prune or remove the tree may be made to the District Court under The Property Law Act 2007 and the said Court can order the pruning or removal of a tree under the said Act.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    The tree removal, stump grinding and replanting with an appropriate species of tree would need to be undertaken by a qualified and experienced arboricultural contractor. The public would need to be notified of the works prior to commencement of works.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation timeframe for tree removal and stump grinding - This could be undertaken at any time, subject to weather, traffic management and public notification.

8.12       Implementation timeframe for replacement planting - The replacement planting is preferable during the autumn/winter planting season May to August 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13       This is the preferred option because:

·   Reduced tree maintenance costs for council/ratepayer.

·   Reduced potential cost to council/ratepayers for future potential damage to the private/council infrastructure.

·   CCC may continue to receive complaints with regards to the tree creating council /private infrastructure damage.

·   50% cost sharing to council/resident for removal and stump grinding.

·   Eleven respondents were in support of removing the tree.

·   No respondents were in favour of tree retention.

·   Replanting will enhance the streetscape.

 

8.14       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of a healthy tree may set a president for any future enquiries for a healthy tree removal request.

·   The tree is currently healthy and structurally sound.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Falconridge Place Tree Assessment

51

 

 

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

Craig Taylor - Arborist East

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

Jo Hart - Manager Technical Support

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

9.        Marking of existing Aston Drive Bus Stops

Reference:

16/843237

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

Enter email address

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of marked bus stops at the existing bus stops on Aston Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to issues arising from an existing unmarked bus stop where the sign is being vandalised, leading to buses not stopping and bus passengers missing their stops. The bus operators have also requested that the bus stop be marked on the road for this same reason.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board approves that:

West side Aston Drive Bus Stop

1.         All parking and stopping restrictions on the western side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 35 metres north of its intersection with Beach Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres be revoked.

2.         A marked bus stop be installed on the western side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 35 metres north of its intersection with Beach Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

East side Aston Drive Bus Stop

3.         All parking and stopping restrictions on the eastern side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 33 metres north its intersection with Beach Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres be revoked.

4.         A marked bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Aston Drive commencing at a point 33 metres north of its intersection with Beach Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.1.2   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.1.3   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Mark existing bus stops (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Road markings clearly delineate the bus stop area for all road users and where it isn’t appropriate to park.

·     Marking the bus stops provides additional room for buses to manoeuvre up to the kerb, mitigating concerns raised by residents about buses stopping in the traffic lane due to parked vehicles blocking efficient access to the bus stop.

·     Road markings will discourage vandalism of the bus stop signs as the bus stop will still be marked and operational.  This could save council staff and contractor’s time and money in the long term.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes one car parking space on the west side of Aston Drive and two on the east side.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The bus stop on the west side of Aston Drive was installed as an unmarked bus stop at some stage before 2009, outside what was at the time a vacant lot.

5.2       In late 2015 a new house was constructed on the vacant lot at 3 Aston Drive and a request to remove the bus stop was lodged with Council, citing buses stopping over the driveway as the reason to move the bus stop. This request was declined because buses are legally permitted to stop over driveways for the purposes of picking up and dropping off passengers, and the bus stop is best located here for the overall safety of all road users.

5.3       From the end of 2015 buses have had difficulty accessing the bus stop to drop off passengers, with contractor vehicles and other resident’s vehicles parking on the bus stop. In April 2016 the bus stop sign was reported missing by bus drivers, and was reinstalled by Council contractors. In June the sign was again reported to have been removed. Council contractors report having reinstalled signs at this location three times over the month of June 2016.

5.4       When bus stops are not marked on the road and are indicated with only a bus stop sign, the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 states:

5.4.1   A driver or person in charge of a vehicle must not stop, stand, or park the vehicle within 6 m of a bus stop sign.

5.5       There is approximately 7.5m metres of space south of the west side bus stop where parking is not permitted due to the presence of driveways for 1B and 3 Aston Drive.  This space provides room for buses to manoeuver into the bus stop, but when the bus stop is occupied by illegally parked vehicles buses are forced to either bypass the bus stop before stopping at the next bus stop which forces passengers to walk further, or stop in the traffic lane and let passengers off onto the road. Stopping in the traffic lane is not a good option for bus drivers at this location due to the traffic volumes and the proximity to the Beach Road intersection.

5.6       When the bus stop sign is removed, as has been happening, Council Parking Enforcement are unable to issue infringement notices to illegally parked vehicles and buses bypass the bus stop, inconveniencing passengers.

5.7       On 4 July 2016, a letter (Attachment B) was delivered to nearby residents advising that the bus stop sign was being removed illegally, and that as the Road Controlling Authority, Christchurch City Council is obliged to maintain all parking restrictions, including bus stops, which have been approved.

5.8       Following this letter, concerns were raised by the adjacent owner about the safety of the current bus stop location, when buses stop partially in the lane and cause a backlog of traffic, causing near misses. The location was assessed and it was determined that the current location is the most appropriate, but now needed road markings due to illegal parking to provide buses room to pull up to the kerb properly and get out of the traffic lane.

5.9       It is therefore proposed to install road marking for both existing unmarked bus stops on Aston Drive between Beach Road and Larnach Place.  Both bus stops require this treatment to prevent the same issues occurring on the east side bus stop if only the west side bus stop is marked. This will improve the efficiency and safety of the bus service, address safety concerns raised, and will send a clear message to all road users where the bus stop is and where it is not appropriate to park.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Mark the existing bus stops with road marking in accordance with Attachment A.

This option will remove three parking spaces. However, parking demands are sufficiently low that the displacement of parking will be negligible.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by a combination of mail and letter drop. No responses were received from this consultation.

6.6       Environment Canterbury supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $600 for new road markings.

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

6.10    Funding source – Public Transport Minor Works Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Further vandalism and illegal parking, but this will be easier to deal with and enforce.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Road markings clearly delineate the bus stop area for all road users and where it is not appropriate to park.

·   Marking the bus stops provides additional room for buses to manoeuvre up to the kerb, mitigating concerns raised by residents about buses stopping in the traffic lane due to parked vehicles blocking efficient access to the bus stop.

·   Road markings will discourage vandalism of the bus stop signs as the bus stop will still be marked and operational.  This could save council staff and contractor’s time and money in the long term.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes three car parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not install road markings at the existing bus stops.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by a combination of mail and letter drop. No responses were received from this consultation.

7.5       Environment Canterbury does not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies because an identified safety issue will not be addressed.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – if vandalism continues there will be significant costs in staff time, police time, and costs to the maintenance contractor to replace the sign.

7.9       Funding source – Existing maintenance contract.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    If vandalism continues, staff will need to involve the police to prosecute offenders.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not overcome issues arising if the sign is vandalised and buses do not stop and bus passengers miss their bus.

·   Continued vandalism will require council staff to involve the police, which will cost staff time, police time, and will not guarantee a resolution to the issue.

·   Continued vandalism will incur additional costs to council contractors due to having to replace the sign.

·   This option does not address an identified safety issue.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed 3 & 4 Aston Drive Road Marking at existing Bus Stops - Plan For Board Approval

63

b

Bus Stop sign removal letter to residents of Aston Drive - 4 July 2016

64

 

 

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

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Mark Millar - Senior Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

10.    Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Burwood / Pegasus

Reference:

16/912672

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at existing bus stops located at 39 Inwoods Road (on Queenspark Drive), 152 Keyes Road and 4 Lake Terrace Road that have received no objection by the owner or occupier of the adjacent property.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  Where no objection (either by approval or no feedback) to the shelter has been presented by the owner and/or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

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 comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolves to approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         39 Inwoods Road (on Queenspark Drive),

b.         152 Keyes Road, and

c.         4 Lake Terrace Road.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a bus passenger shelter at 39 Inwoods Road (on Queenspark Drive), 152 Keyes Road and 4 Lake Terrace Road, adjacent to existing bus stops, as described in Section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter, and

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

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

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter is proposed at the Queenspark Drive and Keyes Road bus stops due to the average weekday passenger boardings being 57 passengers per day at both bus stops.  The proposed shelter located adjacent to 4 Lake Terrace, has been requested by the Disabled Persons Assembly.  This bus stop has on average 15 passengers per day boarding a bus, it also provides passengers the choice to interchange between two bus lines, the Orange and the 60 bus lines.

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

5.3       Council staff propose to install shelters in the locations outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plan (refer to Attachments A to C).  Where a shelter is located adjacent to an existing bus stop that has no bus stop road markings or the bus stop road markings are not long enough, a proposal has been made to address these deficiencies.  Further consultation and a separate report has been prepared for the approval of the bus stop road marking installation or modification.  The upgrade of the bus stop road markings will help improve passenger accessibility and bus line operating efficiency. 

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

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

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for all shelters proposed occurred from Wednesday 10 August 2016 to Wednesday 24 August 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished no objection has been received from any of the owners and/or occupiers of properties located adjacent to the proposed bus shelter sites.

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 39 Inwoods Road (on Queenspark Drive), 152 Keyes Road and 4 Lake Terrace Road.  All proposed shelters are adjacent to an existing bus stop.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter.  A consultation notice and feedback form was mailed to each property listed below on 4 August 2016, requesting the owners or occupiers approval or objection to the bus shelter at the bus stop outside the property they own or occupy.  The consultation process closed on 18 August 2016.

·   Queenspark Drive shelter:  39 Inwoods Road.

·   Keyes Road shelter:  152E*, 152, 162 Keyes Road, and 9 Baker Street (* = Orion)

·   Lake Terrace shelter:  2, 2A - B, 4, 6, 6A Lake Terrace Road.

6.5       A representative of Orion, the owners of 152E Keyes Road have contacted council staff, to receive confirmation that the shelter will not be located over the Orion Frontage.  Council staff have confirmed to Orion that the shelter will not be located over the Orion frontage, as per what was indicated in the consultation plan.

6.6       No objection has been received from any of the other owners and/or occupiers of the properties listed above to the proposed bus passenger shelter sites.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost to supply and install three bus passenger shelters, plus additional bus stop upgrade work will cost about $27,000. 

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

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    The shelter is not installed, leading to a poor level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

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

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Additional seating provided outside shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport, and

·   Provide a positive contribution to the overall streetscape.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       No bus passenger shelters are installed at the locations identified in section 3 of this report.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  As there is no bus passenger shelter proposed, the engagement requirements for this level of significance does not involve any consultation.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - It does not ensure user satisfaction with the number and quality of bus shelters

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - Bus passengers will not be provided shelter to wait for a bus

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - No amendment needed to the Council's Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The existing passenger waiting facilities remain, leading to no improvement to the level of service for passengers waiting for a bus.

7.11    It may reduce bus patronage on wet days, as passengers may choose another mode of travel as there is no shelter provided at the bus stop.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is inconsistent with Council's Plans and Policies.

·   It would undermine the approval of the adjacent property owners who have indicated approval to the installation of the bus passenger shelter.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 39 Inwoods Road (bus sto on Queenspark Drive)

71

b

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 152 Keyes Road

72

c

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 4 Lake Terrace Road

73

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

11.    Proposed Remediation of Existing Bus Stops Concerning Road Markings, Layout Alterations and Authorisations- Burwood / Pegasus

Reference:

16/976511

Contact:

Brenda O’Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve road markings for existing bus stops at 39 Inwoods Road (bus stop on Queenspark Drive) and 152 Keyes Road, and approve two bus stops on Lake Terrace Road that are currently operating under temporary authorisation.  The location of the four bus stops is shown on Attachments A to C.

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The decision to present this report runs in parallel to a separate bus passenger shelter report that is associated with the bus stops identified in this report.  The reason why the bus stops in this report have been selected is be due to, but not limited to the following reasons:

·   Deficiencies in bus stop road markings that have been identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015).

·   Authorisation of bus stops that are currently operating under temporary authorisation.

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 assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         39 Inwoods Road, bus stop on Queenspark Drive (Attachment A)

a.         Approves that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Queenspark Drive commencing at its intersection with Inwoods Road and extending in an eastbound direction for a distance of 57.7 metres be revoked.

b.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Queenspark Drive commencing at its intersection with Inwoods Road and extending in an eastbound direction for a distance of 39.7 metres.

c.         Approves that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Queenspark Drive commencing at a point 39.7 metres east of its intersection with Inwoods Road and extending in an eastbound direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Queenspark Drive commencing at a point 53.7 metres east of its intersection with Inwoods Road and extending in an eastbound direction for a distance of 4 metres.

2.         152 Keyes Road (Attachment B)

a.         Approves that all parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Keyes Road commencing at a point 41.7 metres south of its intersection with Bowhill Road and extending in a southbound direction for a distance of 26 metres be revoked.

b.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the west side of Keyes Road commencing at a point 41.7 metres south of its intersection with Bowhill Road and extending in a southbound direction for a distance of 4 metres.

c.         Approves that a marked bus stop be installed on the west side of Keyes Road commencing at a point 45.7 metres south of its intersection with Bowhill Road and extending in a southbound direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the west side of Keyes Road commencing at a point 59.7 metres south of its intersection with Bowhill Road and extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 8 metres.

3.         4-6 Lake Terrace Road (Attachment C)

Note the parking restrictions for 4-6 Lake Terrace Road are for an extended bus stop box only, as per the how the existing bus stop is marked on-street.

a.         Approves that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Lake Terrace Road commencing at a point 70 metres northwest of its intersection with New Brighton Road, extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 28 metres be revoked.

b.         Approves that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Lake Terrace Road commencing at a point 70 metres northwest of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 28 metres.

4.         5-7 Lake Terrace Road (Attachment C)

Note the parking restrictions are for 5 -7Lake Terrace Road are an extended bus stop box only, as per the how the existing bus stop is marked on-street.

a.         Approves that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Lake Terrace Road commencing at a point 48 metres northwest of its intersection with New Brighton Road, extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 28 metres be revoked.

b.         Approves that a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Lake Terrace Road commencing at a point 48 metres northwest of its intersection with New Brighton Road and extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 28 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approval of proposed road marking alterations at 39 Inwoods Road (bus stop on Queenspark Drive) and 152 Keyes Road.  Approval of two bus stops on Lake Terrace Road that are currently operating with temporary authorisation.

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·     Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·     Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·     The proposed bus stop road marking improvements sit alongside proposed improvements to passenger waiting facilities (bus passenger shelter).

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Installing the Queenspark Drive bus stop road markings as per the recommended minimum bus stop road marking length as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009), as well as extending the ‘no stopping’ lines back to Inwoods Road will result in the loss of two on-street parking spaces.  The impact is mitigated by the availability of the on-street parking supply that is located nearby.

·     Installing the 152 Keyes Road bus stop road markings as per the recommended minimum bus stop road marking length as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) will result in the loss of one on-street parking space.  The impact is mitigated by the availability of the on-street parking supply that is located nearby.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background – Bus Stops at 39 Inwoods Road (Queenspark Drive) and 152 Keyes Road

5.1       The bus stops adjacent to 39 Inwoods Road (bus stop on Queenspark Drive) and 152 Keyes Road are unmarked bus stops.  The bus stop adjacent to 39 Inwoods Road has been operational since at least 2007 and the bus stop adjacent to 152 Keyes Road has been operational since 1997.

5.2       Unmarked bus stops do not adhere to the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  Deficiencies in bus stop road markings have been identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015). 

Background – Approval of bus stops adjacent to 4-6 Lake Terrace and 5-7 Lake Terrace

5.3       Following the Environment Canterbury bus network review of December 2014, a gap in bus stop provision in the New Brighton Road area for the newly created Orange Line and 60 bus line was identified.  Due to the travel direction of the Orange Line and the 60 bus line, bus stops adjacent to 4-6 Lake Terrace and 5-7 Lake Terrace have been determined by staff for Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury, to be the most appropriate location to facilitate passengers who want to travel on these bus lines, or interchange between the bus lines.

5.4       Due to the significant number of bus stop infrastructure changes that were occurring or needed to be actioned in early 2015, to accommodate passenger needs around the revised bus network, these bus stop were installed with temporary authorisation due to the urgent need by passengers.

5.5       As previously indicated the bus stops are serviced by two bus lines, the Orange and the 60.  The 60 bus line travels between Southshore and Wigram Skies via the City Centre.  The Orange bus line travels between Halswell and Queenspark via the City Centre.

Public Consultation

5.6       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the properties to the proposed bus stops.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand to the properties listed below.  The consultation period commenced Thursday 4 August 2016, and finished Thursday 18 August 2016.

·   Queenspark Drive:  39 Inwoods Road.

·   Keyes Road:  152E*, 152, 162 Keyes Road, and 9 Baker Street (* = Orion)

·   Lake Terrace (north side bus stop):  2, 2A - B, 4, 6, 6A Lake Terrace Road.

·   Lake Terrace (south side bus stop):  5, 7, 7A, 9 Lake Terrace Road.

5.7       An objection to the bus stop adjacent to 5-7 Lake Terrace Road has been received from the owner/occupier of 7 Lake Terrace Road.  An objection has been received to the marking of the bus stop adjacent to 152 Keyes Road.  No other objections have been received from the remaining owners and/or occupiers of properties listed above.

6.   Option 1 - Approval of proposed road marking alterations at 39 Inwoods Road (bus stop on Queenspark Drive) and 152 Keyes Road.  Approval of two bus stops on Lake Terrace Road.

Option Description

6.1       As shown on Attachments A to C, the recommended bus stop locations are adjacent to 39 Inwoods Road (bus stop on Queenspark Drive), 152 Keyes Road, 4-6 and 5-7 Lake Terrace Road.

6.2       The type of bus stop provided for in all locations adheres to the recommended provisions as set out in the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

6.3       Where additional bus stop improvements such as a hard-footing extension, de-cluttering of the footpath environment have been identified through site assessments, these features will be incorporated into the bus stop improvement works.  Such improvements lead to a better level of service for pedestrians passing the bus stop and for passengers waiting at the bus stop.

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with Section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with ECan as the relevant bus operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.5       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 Ngai Tahu, their culture and traditions. 

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed bus stops.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand to the properties listed below.  The consultation period commenced Thursday 4 August 2016, and finished Thursday 18 August 2016.

·   Queenspark Drive:  39 Inwoods Road.

·   Keyes Road:  152E*, 152, 162 Keyes Road, and 9 Baker Street (* = Orion)

·   Lake Terrace (north side bus stop):  2, 2A - B, 4, 6, 6A Lake Terrace Road.

·   Lake Terrace (south side bus stop):  5, 7, 7A, 9 Lake Terrace Road.

Consultation – 7 Lake Terrace Road

6.7       As indicated in Section 5.6 an objection to the bus stop adjacent to 5-7 Lake Terrace Road has been received from the owner/occupier (Susanna Roskilley) of 7 Lake Terrace Road.  The objection is due to the loss of parking outside her house, and the quick manner in which the bus stop was originally installed.  The annoyance of having unrestricted on-street parking restricted by the installation of a bus stop is understandable.  However, the bus stop provides adjacent residents with two good bus lines to travel to their destinations of choice, be it to a school, place of work/entertainment/retail.  The presence of unrestricted on-street parking near to 7 Lake Terrace Road provides sufficient capacity for times when the owner of this property wants to park on-street or has guests visiting who have travelled by car.

Consultation – 152E Keyes Road

6.8       An objection has been submitted by a representative, Tessa Sutherland, of Orion to the marking of the bus stop adjacent to 152 Keyes Road.  The objector has indicated that Orion oppose the marking of the bus stop on the grounds of access and health and safety, as indicated in the following statements.

·   Access:  The proposed designated road markings are located directly in front of the road entrance to our building substation located at 152E Keyes Road. This building substation plays an important role in supplying electricity for this area and Orion has a responsibility to provide a safe, efficient and resilient supply of electricity which requires the ability to have full and unrestricted access at any time to its network - including this building substation. This ability would be compromised as our staff or contractors may not be able to freely access the site, particularly in an emergency (ie to repair a fault/respond to a power outage), if there is a bus occupying the designated bus stop space.

·   Health and Safety:  There are health and safety matters associated with the access issue that need to be considered if Orion was unable to efficiently respond to a fault or power outage in order to reinstate a lifeline utility service.

6.9       The objector has indicated a preferred site that would place the bus stop within left turn traffic lane that approaches the roundabout controlled intersection with Bowhill Road.

6.10    As indicated in Section 5.1 this bus stop became operation in 1997, when it was approved by Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.  As such the bus stop has been operational for nearly 20 years beside the electricity power station. 

6.11    Council staff have queried the Orion representative on the number of times that access to the power station has been compromised for Orion or contract staff in the past 20 years, a period that has included multiple earthquakes and another emergency situations (e.g. heavy snow, storms, etc.).  Orion have not been able to provide Council with any information that would indicate that access to the power station by staff or contractors has been compromised.

6.12    It is important to note, that for bus stops such as the one on Keyes Road, buses are generally stopped for 20 to 30 seconds in order to pick-up or drop-off passengers.  As such the bus is stopped for a very brief amount of time, leaving the access clear for the majority of day.  Furthermore the bus driver is not permitted to leave the vehicle when stopped at this bus stop.  If an occasion is to arise, which no data has been presented for the last 20 years the bus stop has been in operation for, the person seeking access to the power station can ask the bus driver to move along.

6.13    As per Part 6.9 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, it is a permitted activity for a bus stop across a vehicle entrance and exit (driveway), for the action of allowing passengers to board or disembark the bus at an authorised bus stop.

6.14    Having a bus stop in front of the Orion substation can be an effective tool in ensuring the access is kept clear.  Without the bus stop, it may become tempting for drivers to park their vehicles across the Orion driveway or partly obstruct it, as drivers may take advantage that the driveway is not regularly used as per a residential driveway.

6.15    The suggestion of relocating the bus stop into the left turn lane approach to the roundabout controlled intersection with Bowhill Road is not a location that can be supported from both a network efficiency and road safety perspective.

6.16    In summary the bus stop, marked or unmarked does not restrict access to the Orion substation at any time.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.18    Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost of this option is $3,000.00.

6.19    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

6.20    Funding source - Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

6.21    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.

6.22    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

6.23    Adheres to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

Risks and Mitigations

6.24    Road users continue to park in the marked bus stop box and on the 'No Stopping' lines.  The risk is mitigated by vehicle users obeying the road rules, or by parking enforcement if deemed necessary.

Implementation

6.25    Implementation dependencies: The implementation is dependent on the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee approving the recommendations as described in Section 3.

6.26    Implementation timeframe:  Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.27    The advantages of this option include:

·   Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·   Provision the recommended bus stop length also has the potential to improve operational performance of the bus lines that use the bus stop.

·   The proposed bus stop road marking improvements sit alongside proposed improvements to passenger waiting facilities.

6.28    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Installing the Queenspark Drive bus stop road markings as per the recommended minimum bus stop road marking length as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009), as well as extending the ‘no stopping’ lines back to Inwoods Road will result in the loss of two on-street parking spaces.  The impact is mitigated by the availability of the on-street parking supply that is located nearby.

·   Installing the 152 Keyes Road bus stop road markings as per the recommended minimum bus stop road marking length as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) will result in the loss of one on-street parking space.  The impact is mitigated by the availability of the on-street parking supply that is located nearby.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.  Bus stop road markings do adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines, and the bus stops at 4-6 and 5-7 Lake Terrace are left with temporary authorisation.

Significance

7.2       Refer to Section 6.7.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       Refer to Section 6.8.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Refer to Section 6.9 - 6.15.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   This option is inconsistent with the Long Term Plan as it does not ensure adherence to the bus stop road marking minimum recommends as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  Lack of adherence to the recommended road marking has the potential to affect how the bus can pull into a bus stop in a safe and efficient manner, and how close to the kerb the stop can stop to pick-up or set-down passengers.

7.5.2   There would also be some uncertainty surrounding the future of the Lake Terrace bus stops, as they would continue to operate under temporary authorisation.  This could make it more difficult to increase the level of service provided to bus passengers, as it would be harder to justify future bus stop infrastructure upgrades, e.g. seats, shelter, real time information, etc.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       The lack of or insufficient length of a marked bus stop does not adhere to the bus stop road marking recommendations as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009)

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Lack of adherence to the recommended road marking has the potential to affect how the bus can pull into a bus stop in a safe and efficient manner, and how close to the kerb the stop can stop to pick-up or set-down passengers.

7.11    As indicated in Section 7.5.2, if the bus stops on Lake Terrace continue to operate under temporary authorisation, it could make it more difficult to increase the level of service provided to bus passengers, as it would be harder to justify future bus stop infrastructure upgrades.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not remove any on-street parking.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Refer to section 7.10 and 7.11.

·   The lack of bus stop road markings at 19 Kirk Road continues to not adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Lack of adherence to the recommended bus stop length does not provide the potential to improve passenger accessibility, or provide improvements to the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   It does not take advantage of other work public transport work scheduled to improve passenger waiting facilities at the time of writing.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

For Approval: Bus Stop Plan - 39 Inwoods Road_Bus Stop on Queenspark Drive

84

b

For Approval - Bus Stop Plan - 152 Keyes Road

85

c

For Approval - Bus Stop Plan - 4-6 and 5-7 Lake Terrace Road

86

 

 

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

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

12.    Marine Parade Proposed Parking Restrictions (including electric vehicle charger parking restrictions)

Reference:

16/951251

Contact:

Wayne Anisy

Wayne.anisy@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of various time limited parking restrictions and electric vehicle charger parking restrictions on Marine Parade at the New Brighton Pier/Library layby in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from the Christchurch City Council’s Strategy and Transformation Group to install two electric vehicle charger parks within the existing parking bay and is in support of the Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board for the 14 space angle parking area in council reserve land on the east side of Marine Parade and opposite Beresford Street as depicted in Attachment A:

a.         Revokes all existing parking restrictions

b.         Approves that the two most northern spaces be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes, at any time, for vehicles with an approved mobility person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport-Road User Rule: 2004.

c.         Approves that the third and fourth parking spaces from the north be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, at any time, for electric vehicles for the purpose of charging their batteries only.

d.         Approves that the 10 southern most parking spaces be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes, at any time.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install various time limited parking restrictions to include P60 parks, mobility parks and electric vehicle charger parks (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     High vehicle turnover will be achieved.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Vehicles are not permitted to park all day in this area.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       In October 2015 the Christchurch City Council (CCC) adopted the Christchurch Energy Action Plan. The action plan includes CCC programme areas of work relating to encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. CCC in conjunction with Orion are proposing to install electric vehicle parks at a number of locations in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.  Publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure is intended to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles.

5.2       Restricted parking at electric vehicle charging sites is required to ensure only electric vehicles can park at the site to charge their vehicles and to also ensure the regular turn-over of use of these charging point parking sites.

5.3       Investigation of this site for the location of this electric vehicle charging point site identified that the particular location proposed currently had Mobility Parks and regular P60 Time limited parks which had no record of being formally resolved.

5.4       All though the proposed parking restriction area falls under the Parks reserve, under the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 it states that All Community Boards have Delegated Authority to approve restricted parking areas on any roads, or part of roads, or within car parks, or in other areas controlled by the Council, which is the case for this location.

5.5       As the proposed option does not affect any property owners or residents there was very little consultation needed. The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board, New Brighton Library and the Operations Manager from the Council Regional Parks Unit were all consulted with, all were in support with the proposal and to formally resolve this parking area.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install various time limited parking restrictions to include P60 parks, mobility parks and electric vehicle charger parks (preferred)

Option Description

Install various time limited parking restrictions in the Pier/Library parking bay to include P60 parks, mobility parks and electric vehicle charger parks as detailed in Attachment A.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The proposed option does not directly affect any property owners or residents so little consultation was undertaken.  The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board, New Brighton Library and the Operations Manager from the Council Regional Parks Unit were all consulted with and all were in support of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $550 for signage and markings.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides access to chargers for electric vehicles to charge their batteries.

·   Formally resolves time restrictions and mobility parking and promotes high vehicle turnover.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Restricts two parking spaces for use only be electric vehicles for the purpose of charging their batteries.

·   Vehicles are not permitted to park all day in this area.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing parking measures

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Vehicles are able to park all day.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the installation of electric vehicle charger parking.

·   Does not address the need mobility and time restricted parking at this location.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Marine Parade Proposed Parking Restrictions for Board Report

92

 

 

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

Wayne Anisy - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

13.    Hardy Street Proposed P3 Parking Restriction

Reference:

16/952305

Contact:

Wayne Anisy

Wayne.anisy@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of a P3 (drop off/pick up) parking zone on Hardy Street outside Nova Montessori School in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from the Nova Montessori School.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Revokes all parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Hardy Street commencing at its intersection with Owles Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 74 metres.

2.         Approves that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Hardy Street commencing at its intersection with Owles Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

3.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of three minutes on the west side of Hardy Street commencing at a point 20 metres north west of its intersection with Owles Terrace and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 54 metres. This restriction is to apply between the hours of 8.15am to 9.15am and 2.30pm to 3.30pm on school days.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install P3 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:

·     Allowing parents and caregivers an area to drop off and pick up their children which may have been otherwise occupied by all day parkers.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Vehicles are unable to park for lengths of time other than what is stated on the signs.

 

5.   Context/Background

 

5.1       Representatives of Nova Montessori School have approached Council with a request to install an area of time restricted parking for school drop off and pick up requirements (refer Attachment 1).

5.2       The school have requested a safe area for buses and parents/caregivers to park and pick up/drop off children.  The creation of a short term parking restriction will provide turnover of parking maximising the ability for a car park in close proximity to the school during peak arrival/departure periods.  This type of parking management is common outside many schools.

5.3       It is proposed to create an area of three minute parking restrictions in front of the school on Hardy Street. These restrictions are to apply between the hours of 8.15am to 9.15am and 2.30pm to 3.30pm on school days only.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install P3 Parking Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

It is proposed to create an area of three minute time limited parking restrictions in front of the Nova Montessori School on Hardy Street. These restrictions are to apply between the hours of 8.15am to 9.15am and 2.30pm to 3.30pm on school days only.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       This proposal does not affect any residential frontages as the restrictions are proposed for the Nova Montessori School’s frontage only.

6.5       There has been no consultation with nearby residents as Council staff consider that this proposal will mitigate any negative parking issues that are occurring or have occurred in the past.  Many of these issues generally arise as a consequence of people parking outside the school for prolonged periods taking up the valuable space for drop off and pick up of children during peak periods.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $300

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Allowing parents and caregivers an area to drop off and pick up their children which may have been otherwise occupied by all day parkers.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Vehicles are unable to park for lengths of time other than what is stated on the signs.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the issues that parents and caregivers require an area to drop off and pick up their children which may have been otherwise occupied by all day parking.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hardy Street Proposed P3 Diagram for Board Report

98

 

 

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

Wayne Anisy - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

14.    Joy Street Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/952496

Contact:

Wayne Anisy

Wayne.anisy@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on Joy Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from members of the community.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Joy Street commencing at a point 86 metres south west of its intersection with Golf Links Road and extending in a south westerly and then in a southerly direction for a total distance of 39 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection of Joy Street and Vardon Crescent.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There have been recent concerns raised by members of the public regarding the safety and parked vehicles obstructing travel paths along Joy Street at the intersection of Vardon Crescent.

5.2       Vardon Street intersects Joy Street on the outside of a bend and is give way controlled.  There are no stopping lines installed around the west side of Joy Street and on the Vardon Street approach to the intersection.

5.3       There are no parking restrictions on the east side of Joy Street around the bend and through the intersection.

5.4       There are traffic calming measures in place at this location however parked vehicles on the inside of the bend (eastern side) of Joy Street can obstruct travel paths for vehicles as the lane is only about 3m wide.  This encourages drivers to cross the centre line to avoid parked vehicles and creates potential conflict and a risk of collisions with other traffic at the intersection.  The approaches to the intersection are narrow, such that there is little space for motorists to take evasive action to avoid any vehicle that crosses the centre line unexpectedly.

5.5       This was considered a road safety issue by staff so consultation was limited to affected property owners and residents being advised of the recommended option by way of visit to property at the time of investigation. The property owner of #120 Joy Street requested if some parking could be retained outside of his property, which was able to be incorporated into the design.


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

Install no stopping restrictions on the east side of Joy Street as shown on Attachment A.6.2          This option would theoretically remove vehicle parking spaces. However, parking demands are sufficiently low that the displacement of parking will be negligible.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       This was considered a road safety issue by staff so consultation was limited to affected property owners and residents being advised of the recommended option by way of visit to property at the time of investigation. The property owner of #120 Joy Street requested if some parking could be retained outside of his property, which was able to be incorporated into the design.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $40

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at this location.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Joy Street Proposed No Stopping Diagram for Board Report

104

 

 

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

Wayne Anisy - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

15.    Burwood Road Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (Burwood Hospital)

Reference:

16/975164

Contact:

Wayne Anisy

wayne.anisy@ccc.govt.nz

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions on Burwood Road to enable the marking of a right turn lane for the main entrance into Burwood Hospital as shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to safety requirements associated with the installation of a new right turn bay into Burwood Hospital.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Revokes all stopping and parking restrictions on the west side of Burwood Road commencing at a point 201 metres north of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 107 metres.

2.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Burwood Road commencing at a point 201 metres north of its intersection with Mairehau Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 107 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Safety for all road users with the provision of a right turn bay on Burwood Road at the main entrance to Burwood Hospital.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes P10 car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The new main entrance into Burwood Hospital on Burwood Road requires a right turn lane to safely accommodate the volume of traffic using this entrance. This was recognised during the development of plans for the hospital. The attached plan shows the proposed layout for this right turn bay and details the proposed no stopping restrictions that are required.

5.2       The proposed no stopping restrictions are necessary to install the right turn bay and improve safety at the new entrance. There are currently P10 parking restrictions through this area and the no stopping lines are to replace these restrictions. (Refer to Attachment A) for locations.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

Install No Stopping restrictions on Burwood Road, as shown on Attachment A.6.2     This option would remove the existing P10 parking restriction that has space for about 6 vehicles to park.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by way of a letter drop performed by staff on 18/8/2016, the end date for submissions was 28/8/2016.

6.6       In total there were 11 copies of the proposal delivered between properties #301 to #311 Burwood Road which included the Kindercare Learning Centre. All submitters will be notified of the date and time of the meeting at which the report will be considered by the Board.

6.7       Only one submission was received in full support of the proposal and included a comment stating that “the sooner this plan is put into place, the safer everyone will be”.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation - $0- the cost will be covered by the District Health Board as a requirement associated with the installation of the right turn bay.

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

6.11    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Safety for all road users and allows for a right turn bay and cycle lane to be installed on Burwood Road at the entrance to Burwood Hospital.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes P10 car parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing road markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the safety improvements required at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the requirement to install a right turn bay into Burwood Hospital and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Burwood Road No Stopping Proposal Diagram for Board Report

110

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Wayne Anisy - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

16.    Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street

Reference:

16/1055356

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to approve the installation of 'No Stopping' restrictions at the intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street as shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Shortland Street commencing at its intersection with Tahuna Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres

2.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Shortland Street commencing at its intersection with Tahuna Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 22 metres

3.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Tahuna Street commencing at its intersection with Shortland Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres

4.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Tahuna Street commencing at its intersection with Shortland Street and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes four car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a recent concern raised by a member of the public regarding the operation of Shortland Street / Tahuna Street.  The intersection is an uncontrolled T - intersection, with priority given to Shortland Street. Shortland and Tahuna streets are both classified as local roads, located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

5.2       Vehicles approaching the intersection from Tahuna Street can have limited visibility due to cars parked on Shortland Street. The limited visibility increases the chance of a collision and reduces the intersection level of service.

5.3       A search of the Crash Analysis System (CAS) reveals one reported crash from 2011 to 2016. The reported crash involved a parked vehicle reversing into another parked vehicle following a dispute.

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install 'No Stopping' restrictions on the Shortland Street / Tahuna Street intersection approaches, as shown on Attachment A.

6.2       This option removes four kerbside parking spaces. This parking will be displaced into Tahuna Street where parking demands are low. This option maintains two kerbside parks outside property #28 and one kerbside park outside property #34. Property 28 has a frontage on Shortland Street only and property 34 fronts onto both Shortland Street and Tahuna Street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by post and letter drop respectively. No correspondence was received from property owners or property residents.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – approximately $200.

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

115

b

Location Plan

116

 

 

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

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

17.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/1067393

Contact:

Peter Croucher

Peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

There are no matters to report on for this meeting at the time of publication. 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board receives the report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

   


Burwood/Pegasus Community Board

19 September 2016

 

 

18.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

19.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

20.  Valedictory Speeches

 

Retiring Community Board members will be given an opportunity to give a valedictory speech.