Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 1 September 2016

Time:                                    1.00pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Andrew Turner

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

26 August 2016

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

Communities, Housing and Economic Development - Terms of Reference

Chair

Cr Turner

Membership

Cr Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Cr Chen, Cr Gough, Cr Jones, Cr Lonsdale, Cr Johanson, Deputy Mayor Buck, Cr Scandrett

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

The first Thursday of each calendar month except for January

Reports to:

Council

 

Delegations

Heritage Incentive Grant:

The power to approve individual heritage grants to owners of heritage buildings, places or objects listed in the City Plan or the Banks Peninsula District Plan from $15,000 to $100,000 and in accordance with the Council’s heritage grant policies, provided that:

·         Applications for such grants in excess of $100,000, shall be considered by the Committee, but referred with a recommendation by the Committee to the Council for final Approval.

·         The Communities Committee is to report to the Council twice a year, listing heritage grants which have been approved by the Committee pursuant to its delegated powers within the preceding six months.

Creative Industries Support Fund

That any applications that are unsuccessful under the delegation to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager (page 81 refers), and on the request of the applicant, have the ability to be put in front of the Committee with the Chairperson’s approval.

The power to approve grants from these funds exceeding $15,000 (ex GST)

The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee is to report to the Council through the regular Central City Plan Quarterly Report any projects funded under this delegation.

Transitional City Projects Fund

That any applications that are unsuccessful under the delegation to the Urban Design and Regeneration Manager (page 81 refers), and on the request of the applicant, have the ability to be put in front of the Committee with the Chairperson’s approval.

The power to approve grants from these funds exceeding $15,000 (ex GST)

The Community, Recreation and Culture Committee is to report to the Council through the regular Central City Plan Quarterly Report any projects funded under this delegation

            

Responsibilities

·         Developing policy and strategy in relations to long term plan and other activities as listed above.

·         Monitoring earthquake recovery related to the committees specified activities.

·         Considering recommendations from Council's Subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and providers in relations to communities, housing and economic development planning, delivery and operation.

·         Liaise and engage with other organisations/stakeholders.

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

 

Long Term Plan Activities

·         Arts and culture, including:

-       art gallery

-       museums

-       libraries

·         sport and recreations, including leisure facilities

·         economic development, including:

-       city promotions

-       large-scale festivals and events

-       international relations (including sister cities and the Antarctic office)

-       tourism

-       employment (including Mayor Taskforce for Jobs)

-       Christchurch economic development, coordination and leadership

-       Education and skills

-       Venue management

·         Social cohesion

-       Public participation in democratic process (including liaison with Community Boards)

-       Community development and community grants, including:

-       Community facilities

-       Community events and festivals

·         Civil defence and rural fire management

·         Customer services

·         Housing, including:

-       social housing (including rental)

-       housing policy

-       temporary housing

-       tenancy service

-       homelessness

-       inner city housing

·         Heritage protection and policy.

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 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.......................................................................................................................... 5

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 5

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

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

STAFF REPORTS

A       6.       Proposed Council Housing Policy................................................................................. 13

A       7.       Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda - Options for Repair and Strengthening........... 127

C       8.       Update on the Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch, the Council's Heritage Strategy and Englefield Lodge (230 Fitzgerald Avenue)........................................................................................................................ 139

C       9.       Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report September 2016............................ 173

C       10.     Approval of an extension of time for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for 181 Barbadoes Street......................................................................................................... 175

C       11.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 34 St David's Street, Lyttelton.................. 179

C       12.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton....................... 189

C       13.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch...................... 199

C       14.     June 2016 Christchurch Retail Report........................................................................ 211

B       15.     Community Facilities Rebuild Update August 2016.................................................. 225

B       16.     Anchor Projects and Major Facilities Report August 2016...................................... 301

C       17.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 320  

 

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 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 Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 4 August 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Garry Moore will speak to the meeting regarding the Proposed Council Housing Policy.

 

4.2

Stephen Howard will speak to the meeting regarding the Proposed Council Housing Policy.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

 

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 4 August 2016

Time:                                    1.00pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Andrew Turner

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

 

 

3 August 2016

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

Principal Advisor

David Adamson

General Manager City Services

Tel: 941 8235

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00058

It was resolved on the motion of Councillor Turner, seconded by Councillor Livingstone that the apology for absence from Councillor Scandrett and apology for lateness from Councillor Chen be accepted.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00059

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 7 July 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

 

4.1       Ann Kennedy spoke on behalf of Heritage Roses New Zealand regarding the heritage rose wall at Mona Vale.

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00060

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Thanks Heritage Roses New Zealand for their deputation.

2.         Refers this matter to the Programme Manager Heritage Rebuild and to the Head of Parks to respond appropriately to the issues raised in the Deputation.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                      Carried

Councillor Chen arrived at 1.34pm.

 

4.2       Jane Harrison and Jason Mill spoke on behalf of the Bridge South Brighton Trust regarding a new Community Hub for South Brighton (refer to Item 8 on the agenda).

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00061

Part B

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Thanks the Bridge South Brighton Trust for their deputation.

2.         Notes that this matter will be discussed under Item 8 of this agenda.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

4.3       Trevor Lord spoke on behalf of The McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust regarding its recent formal request to the City to assist with the purchase of the Mansion for the purposes of an Art Gallery, featuring New Zealand art, as well as a venue for music performance, heritage tourism and other associated cultural and educational purposes.

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00062

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Thanks The McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust for their deputation.

2.         Requests an urgent report to Council as soon as possible regarding the request for funding made in the Deputation by The McLean’s Mansion Charitable Trust and what, if any support Council could provide.

Councillor Jones/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                      Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

8.   Funding options for The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project

 

Committee Comment

The Committee considered the report following a Deputation by the Bridge South Brighton Trust.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Consider the report.

2.         Request staff to report to the Committee with a detailed application and assessment for funding on The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project.

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00063

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

 

1.         Consider the report.

         2.        Request staff to report to the Council meeting of 25 August 2016, with particular regard to the Capital Endowment Fund as an option, with a detailed application and assessment for funding on The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project.

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

An adjournment was taken from 02.25pm to 02.35pm.

 

Councillor Livingstone left the meeting at 02:25pm.

Councillor Johanson left the meeting at 02.25pm.

 

6.   Chairperson's Report of the Christchurch City Development Forum

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00064

(Development Forum recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

         The Christchurch City Development Forum recommends that the Council ask staff to prepare a report outlining the options for the implementation of a city-wide Derelict Building/Site Policy to incentivise development and/or disincentivise non-development of derelict sites, taking into account a balanced approach, and including:

 

·     Incentives and regulation for property owners

·     A review of the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy.

Councillor Gough/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                    Carried

 

Councillor Livingstone returned to the meeting at 02.38pm.

Councillor Johanson returned to the meeting at 02:40pm.

 

7.   South Library and Beckenham Service Centre Repair and Strengthening Options Report

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00065

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the repair of the South Library at an estimated cost of $8.6M.

2.         Notes that the works will begin in Q3 2018 after the New Central Library Project is finished.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                                Carried

 

9.   Art Gallery Update

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee received an oral presentation by the Art Gallery Director, Jenny Harper.

2.         The Committee requested that regular written reports be received from the Library Services and Art Gallery.

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00066

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the Art Gallery Update report

2.         Notes the successes of the Art Gallery to date.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

10. Community Facilities Rebuild Update July 2016

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00067

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

11. Anchor Projects and Major Facilities Rebuild CHED Report

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00068

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

12. Social Housing Rebuild and Repair Programme Monthly Report for June 2016

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00069

(Staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

a.         Receives the information supplied.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

13  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved CHED/2016/00070

Part C

That at 3.58pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 205 to 206 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                                  Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.17pm.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 4.17pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Councillor Andrew Turner

Chairperson

   


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

6.        Proposed Council Housing Policy

Reference:

16/946956

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend to Council the adoption of a Christchurch City Council Housing Policy.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2016/00279 relating to the approval of a Draft Housing Policy for consultation, and its reporting back to Council via the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee for proposed final adoption by the end of September 2016.

2.   Significance

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

·        The level of significance was determined by completing a Significance and Engagement Policy assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

1.         Recommend to Council that it adopts the Christchurch City Council Housing Policy to take effect from 1 October 2016.

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.23 Development of new policies, strategies and plans

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – adopt the Christchurch City Council Housing Policy (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – do not adopt the Christchurch City Council Housing Policy

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

·     An informed, broad policy framework under the Local Government Act 2002 can more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing.

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The potential cost to Council to give full effect to the proposed Housing Policy in terms of assistance it may provide, especially in the areas of social and affordable housing.

 

5.   Context/Background

Policy Content

5.1       The proposed Housing Policy has the overall aim of all people in Christchurch having access to adequate housing that is secure, safe, affordable, warm and dry.  It supports the four key Council Community Outcomes relating to the range and choice of housing in Christchurch: affordable housing options, good quality housing, range of housing types, and sufficient housing to accommodate residents.

5.2       The key themes of the Housing Policy are that it:

·   Provides a grounded policy framework to guide and inform Council activities in the social, affordable and market housing space.

·   Contains guiding principles of housing adequacy, security of tenure, collaboration, quality of life, and quality of housing.

·   Recognises wider structural context and drivers of housing issues, and for affordable housing in particular (e.g. rising numbers of older adults being cash poor as well as asset poor).

·   Recognises all sections of the community have an interest and an active role to play.

·   Notes the importance of capability, capacity, evidence and information sharing.

·   Builds in the concept of resilience with housing as vital community infrastructure rather than just simply a market good.

·   Notes collaboration and effective use of resources within a 'housing continuum' framework to point to issues, options and roles.

·   Describes a series of actions through an attached Schedule (which can be amended as needed without revisiting the core of the Policy) to give effect to the Policy, so as to inform Council activities in social, affordable and market housing.

Policy Consultation

5.3       Consultation on the Policy occurred from 7 July to 7 August 2016.  Submissions on the Policy included those from Community Housing Aotearoa, Otautahi Community Housing Trust, Tenants Protection Association, Christchurch Youth Council, Keep Our Assets Canterbury, Beacon Pathway, Environment Canterbury, Human Rights Commission, Canterbury District Health Board, and five Community Boards.  Copies of the submissions are contained in Attachment One.  Key submission points included:

·   Strong overall support for the Policy framework and actions

·   Requesting a fuller describing of the human rights ‘housing adequacy’ framework

·   Emphasising relationships between all sectors and the issues they need to address

·   Highlighting the design and quality of new stock, and the upgrading of existing

·   Noting the linkages between housing and transport, services, and amenities

·   Identifying several actions for higher priority, e.g. education and advocacy, requiring and retaining affordable housing, and operational policies to support affordable housing

·   Suggesting further strategic documents be noted as linkages to the Policy

5.4       Two stakeholder workshops were held which included, among others attendees from Habitat for Humanity, Otautahi Community Housing Trust, Wayne Francis Trust, Te Whare Roimata, Tenants Protection Association, Social Equity and Wellbeing Network, Christchurch Youth Council, Human Rights Commission, Community and Public Health, Ministry of Building Innovation and Employment, Property Institute of New Zealand, Canterbury Repair and Rebuild Programme, and the New Zealand Housing Foundation.  Key feedback points were:

·   Noting the importance of carrying out a demand driven needs analysis to inform other actions

·   An emphasis on health, wellbeing, and an ageing population

·   The long term security of tenants in all rental housing

·   The low overall quality of rental housing

·   Noting the linkages between housing and transport, services, and amenities

·   Identifying several actions for higher priority, e.g. education and advocacy, requiring and retaining affordable housing, and operational policies to support affordable housing

·   Highlighting private sector engagement, especially in affordable housing

·   A need to make regulatory processes and provisions easier and quicker.

Recommended Policy Changes

5.5       After consideration of submissions and stakeholder feedback some changes to the Policy are recommended, both to the Policy content and to its Schedule One actions.  These are related to what elements of the Policy need greater emphasis and prioritisation rather than a fundamental revisiting of its principles or proposed actions.  The changes are summarised in the tables below, with the revised Housing Policy contained in Attachment Two.

Table One: Recommended changes to the Policy’s Framework

Policy Framework

Vision, Principles, Goals

Human Right to adequate housing framework – note all seven elements including those of ‘Location’ and Availability of Services’ in the Principles, Housing Continuum, and Definitions sections

Note good design within ‘Housing Quality’ goal

Context, Housing Continuum, Scope

Note the ageing population as a specific demographic change

Note the role of housing providers and developers, and Council’s relationship and roles with them

Note design quality and the need to upgrade quality of existing stock in ‘Scope’ section

Note the importance of access to services and amenities in ‘Scope’ section

Linkages, Giving Effect

Note the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Note the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

Note the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan

Emphasise the importance of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and the guidance that the Policy can give to it

 

Table Two: Recommended Changes to Schedule One of the Policy

 

Policy Actions

Demand Analysis, Building Knowledge

Note housing providers and developers in co-ordination and information sharing Commitment

Note the monitoring and evaluating of housing actions in Deliverables

Co-ordination and information sharing Commitment – high priority

Mixed Housing, Inclusive Housing

Include ‘identifying’ within redevelopment of public land Commitment

Include a new Commitment to ‘Encourage the temporary use of vacant sites for housing’

Make the ‘Evaluating exemplars and residential developments’ Deliverable a high priority

Range of Responses, Acute Needs

Note in the ‘Commitments’ section the importance of dialogue with all sectors and the overcoming of barriers to affordable housing provision

Make the ‘Developing of policies to support social and affordable housing’ Deliverable a high priority

Include in Commitments mixed use as a way of supporting affordable housing

Retaining Affordable Housing, Housing Quality

Make the ‘Affordable housing retention’ Commitment a high priority

Make the ‘Education and advocacy’ Commitment a high priority

Note the ‘Education and advocacy’ Commitment as occurring across the Housing Continuum

Emphasise a ‘whole of house’ approach within the ‘Improving rental stock quality’ Commitment

Emphasise the upgrading of existing stock within the ‘Encouraging adaptation of dwellings’ Commitments

Include a new Commitment to emphasise quality and design standards: ‘Promote and monitor universal design and sustainability principles such as ‘Lifemark’ and ‘Homestar’

 Giving Effect to the Policy

5.6       Schedule One contains a list of proposed actions to give effect to the Housing Policy. They are a mix of general commitments (e.g. identify and take opportunities from the redevelopment or reutilisation of public land to deliver a range of housing), and more specific deliverable actions (e.g. evaluate mixed housing exemplar and other residential developments to assess housing outcomes). 

5.7       Most of the actions in Schedule One can reasonably be achieved within existing budgets, and many are closely related to existing work.

5.8       Some of the actions would be an additional cost to Council if fully implemented. These include:

·   Develop consenting, rating and development contributions assistance policies to support social and affordable housing.

·   Encourage and support public, private and philanthropic investment in affordable housing, e.g. investigate the feasibility of housing bond guarantees.

·   Develop measures that assist people to maintain their household security and remain in their communities, e.g. postponing rates.

5.9       The extra cost to Council for these particular actions is estimated to be in the range of $50,000 to $500,000 per annum, depending on how much of a graduated approach is taken in their implementation.  These potential costs are both discretionary and reversible.

5.10    The extent to which the Housing Policy is implemented will depend on decisions made in the Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes, as balanced against other Council projects and services.  It is intended that the Housing Policy be reviewed on a six yearly basis as the City evolves through and beyond the recovery period.

 

6.   Option 1 – Adopt a Housing Policy (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Adopt the Housing Policy to provide a policy framework to more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the spectrum of social, affordable and market housing.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are dialogue and workshops with key stakeholders.

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       Developers and providers of housing and housing related services, especially social and affordable housing and the households that occupy them, are specifically affected by this option due to the potential assistance it can provide for them.  Their views from consultation on the Draft Policy are noted above.

6.5       Recent expressions of community views were made during the developing of the Long Term Plan 2015-2025, which found overall support from submissions on housing for the Council to play a more active role in housing.  Generally submitters felt that the Council should work with the Government, community groups, the private sector and other agencies and providers to increase the supply of both affordable and social housing.

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 - extra costs are discretionary and reversible, ranging from $50,000 to $500,000 per annum depending on the level of enactment of the Policy’s new actions to community housing providers in particular.

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source - Long Term Plan and Annual Plan processes, as balanced against other Council projects and services.

Legal Implications

6.10    Nil – adoption of Policy poses no legal risks, LGA consultation requirements have been met.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    No risks with adopting the Policy itself.  Most identified actions that give effect to it pose little risk.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - no direct dependencies, although would support existing work.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - over the course of the Policy, reviewable every six years.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   An informed, broad policy framework under the LGA (2002) can more effectively guide Council decisions and actions across the spectrum of social, affordable and market housing.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The potential cost to Council to give full effect to the proposed Draft Policy in terms of assistance it may provide, especially in the areas of social and affordable housing.

7.   Option 2 - Do not develop and adopt a Draft Housing Policy

Option Description

7.1       Do not adopt a Housing Policy.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Developers and providers of housing and housing related services, especially social and affordable housing and the households that occupy them, are specifically affected by this option due to the lack of any specific housing policy direction and assistance that can be provided for them.  Their views relate to the unmet housing need in the social and affordable areas (rather than overall housing supply and demand), and their ability to contribute towards addressing it.

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 - nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

7.8       Funding source - nil

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Nil

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No extra cost to Council

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An undeveloped policy position that does not sufficiently guide or support Council actions across the housing continuum.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment One - Draft Housing Policy Submissions

20

b

Attachment Two - Recommended Housing Policy

118

 

 

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

Paul Cottam - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Philippa Green - Finance Business Partner

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

7.        Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda - Options for Repair and Strengthening

Reference:

16/192421

Contact:

Richie Moyle

richie.moyle@ccc.govt.nz

027 499 5592

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend to Council that Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda is reconstructed as per its original purpose and retained in its position as a key element in the Edmonds riverside precinct.

Origin of Report                                                             

1.2       This report is staff generated for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the impact on the local community, and overall importance of this central city public space and structure within the context of its popular riverside location, as it was before the Earthquakes.

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee recommends to Council that it:

1.         Endorses staff to proceed with option 1; where Council will reconstruct and rebuild the Band Rotunda back to its original form and purpose.

a.         The structure will function as per its original purpose (as a band Rotunda excluding basement), utilising the original dome roof (currently preserved on site) and retain its position as a key element in the Edmonds riverside precinct which comprises, as well as the Rotunda, balustrade walls, a shelter, clock tower and telephone cabinet.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.1 (non-LTP) Implement a programme to ensure a consistent and broadened level of historic heritage protection within Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City.

 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - To reconstruct and rebuild the Band Rotunda to function as its original purpose (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing
Remove and store the remaining heritage fabric and clear the site.

·     Option 3 – Reconstruct the Band Rotunda, allowing for the reinstatement of the Basement, to enable use as a restaurant venue.

·     Option 4 - To reconstruct and rebuild the Band Rotunda to function as its original purpose, with retractable glazing.

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     To return this famous icon to its original purpose.

·     Reinstatement could occur concurrently with other work in close proximity within the North frame (i.e. the Memorial site, Ōtākaro Orchard, the new Avon river pedestrian/cycle crossing).

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Rotunda would not be returned to its secondary pre earthquake function, as a restaurant venue (this is considered cost prohibitive due to issues with access and meeting current building code requirements).

·     The only Heritage value will be the Dome roof.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

 

5.1       Thomas John Edmonds was born in Poplar, London on 13 October 1858.  He married Jane Elizabeth Middleton lrvine of London on 8 June 1879 and they arrived in Lyttelton on the Waitangi on 26 September 1879.  They initially established a grocery store which Jane managed and Thomas worked on perfecting a baking powder.  He eventually built sheds on a Ferry Road site to manufacture baking powder on a larger scale, and this became the site of a three storey factory with its distinctive "Sure to Rise" sign.  The factory was demolished following considerable public protest and controversy in October 1990. 

To mark his 50 years of business in Christchurch Edmonds embarked on a philanthropic number of building projects which he either partly or fully funded and these included the Theosophical Society building in Cambridge Terrace, the Radiant Hall (later Repertory Theatre) in Kilmore Street, (the latter lost in the 2011 earthquakes), the Band Rotunda, the clock tower and telephone cabinet in Oxford Terrace, 16 lighting standards along Cambridge Terrace, and Bickerton Park on the comer of Wainoni Road and Avonside Drive in memory of Canterbury University Professor Bickerton.  Thomas Edmonds’ prolific donations were a result of his 50 years of business in Christchurch.  Included in the river enhancement proposal is a significant feature which connects the Band Rotunda to the clock tower and telephone cabinet in the form of two rows of poplars flanking each side of the riverbank.  Edmonds had been born in Poplar London so the tree species had particular meaning.

 

Outdoor brass band performances were a popular form of public entertainment in Christchurch from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century.  In the 1920s the Christchurch City Council subsidized regular band concerts and Edmonds, a supporter of the Woolston Brass Band, decided to donate a band Rotunda in 1929 to coincide with his own Jubilee celebrations.  There had been a proposal to site a new band Rotunda in Cambridge Terrace as early as 1924 to replace the 1894 Rotunda in Victoria Square.
Laying of Foundation stone 26 September 1929
CCL PhotoCD 11, IMG0068

 

Earthquake Damage

5.2       The Rotunda sustained severe earthquake damage notably where the columns connect to the roof and the base.  As a result of this and after considerable engineering examination and advice it was deconstructed.  The significant copper domed roof section which had remained in stable condition and relatively undamaged, was lifted off and placed on the ground with the intention that is would be later reinstated in the Rotunda’s reconstruction.  The remainder of the Rotunda was demolished except for the steps which remain intact insitu.

6.   Option 1 – Return the Band Rotunda to its original purpose when built (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       It is recommended that all remaining elements of the Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda be retained repaired, reconstructed and replicated.

Significance

The level of significance of this option is Medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are Council Heritage team, Heritage New Zealand, Christchurch City Council Asset Management Team, Avon River Precinct Programme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.2       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

6.3       The community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5       Cost of Implementation - $1,230,000 (total project budget).

6.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – to be determined.

6.7       Funding source – 100% cost from Heritage Rebuild Programme Budget.

Legal Implications

6.8       N/A.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       N/A.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies – nil.

6.11    Implementation timeframe – Target completion early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   This option is able to be implemented within the project budget.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option does not include the reinstatement of a basement.

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Remove and store the remaining heritage fabric (The Dome Roof) and clear the site.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is Medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are public notification.

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       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

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 - $130,000 estimate for removal and storage.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A.

7.8       Funding source - Heritage Rebuild Programme Budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Safe transportation and storage of the roof section including the ability to transport the size and weight of the structure around the City.
A suitably qualified operator with experience of moving structures of this mass.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – By the end of 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Significant cost saving.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The loss of a significant icon to the city.

8.   Option 3 – Reinstate the Band Rotunda with a basement i.e. to its pre-earthquake use as a restaurant.

Option Description

8.1       Reinstate the Band Rotunda to current code and to a condition as near as it was, prior to the earthquakes when it was leased out for a restaurant use.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is Medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are notification only.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – $1,878,324 (total project budget). Refer to the public excluded attachment to this report for comments in respect of this.

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – to be determined.

8.8       Funding source – Partial from Heritage Rebuild Programme Budget
Additional funding source for basement option ($648,324) would be required to implement this option

Legal Implications

8.9       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    The implementation of this option is dependent on a design that would successfully gain a Resource Consent.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

8.12    Implementation timeframe – Early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   It may be possible to return this structure to some form of commercial use.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The loss or significant modification to the heritage external stair and potential detailing abutting existing heritage fabric where required to make the spaces fit for purpose.  

·   It is not certain that the reinstatement of the basement would successfully obtain a Resource Consent

·   Due to the Fire and Access requirements to bring the facility up to current code, the floor of the Rotunda and basement would be significantly impacted, due to implementation of fire door and emergency access.

·   Requirements would include ramp access to the basement which will be 12 metres long plus landings top and bottom to suit the approximate 1.0 metre depth of ground to basement floor level.  The original ramp was about half this length.

·   If the Rotunda is to have a public use, the Rotunda floor as well as the basement will require disabled access by ramp, stair climber or hoist.

·   Public and accessible toilets will be required which would most likely need to be in the basement.  This removes a significant part of the useable space of the basement, and as an estimate, space requirements would be 4m x 3.5m plus access space.  Whether public access by exiting the Rotunda and using the external basement ramp is acceptable would need to be resolved.  If internal access were required this would require a stair climber on the internal stairs or a lift.

·   Depending on use, an internal stair between the Rotunda floor and basement may be required.  Previously, this was narrow and steep and would not comply with the code for an accessible stair.  Hence, more space than previously occupied by the stair would be required.

·   To resolve the fire separation three fire exits would be required.  An exit in the basement directly to the outside, an external fire exit at the top of the stair to the outside of the building and an internal fire door within a fire cell at the top of the stair to the public space.  A fire engineer should be consulted once possible uses are known.  The basement exit will include a stair up to the external ground level and involve waterproofing as it begins below the water table.  

·   The proposed use of the Rotunda will determine the extent of effects on the heritage values of the building.  For example, and using the most difficult case as an example, if it is to be reinstated as an enclosed restaurant with commercial kitchen, the accessible, toilets, commercial kitchen and enclosure of the Rotunda would be significant, and more so than the situation that existed previously due to more stringent code compliance requirements.

·   Considerable extra cost to build waterproof and make those elements compliant to current code.

There is a significant number of potential and planned commercial venues in the immediate vicinity of the Band Rotunda.  They are:

 

Ōtākaro Orchards Café (227 Cambridge Terrace)

MED Building Café/Restaurant and Bar (200 Armagh Street)

Margaret Mahy Family Playground concessions

Oxford on Avon Pavilion (798 Colombo Street)

Potential in new development on Manchester/Cambridge (west side)

Very likely extensive hospitality on Oxford Terrace between Colombo and Manchester Streets.

9.   Option 4 – Reinstate the Band Rotunda with retractable glazing

Option Description

9.1       Reinstate the Band Rotunda as its original function but with glazing installed.  The glazing solution will be able to be retracted and fold behind the pillars.

Significance

9.2       The level of significance of this option is Medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are notification only.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       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

9.4       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.6       Cost of Implementation – $1,345,470 (total project budget).
Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – to be determined.

9.7       Funding source – Partial from Heritage Rebuild Programme Budget
Additional funding source for glazing option ($115,470) would be required to implement this option.

Legal Implications

9.8       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

9.9       The implementation of this option is dependent on a design that would successfully gain a building Consent and Resource Consent.

Implementation

9.10    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

9.11    Implementation timeframe – Early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   This structure would be able to be utilised in inclement weather.

9.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option does not include the reinstatement of a basement. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Edmond Band Rotunda CHED Report - Option 3 - mark ups

135

b  

PX attachment - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Richie Moyle - Programme Manager, Heritage Facilities Rebuild

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

8.        Update on the Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch, the Council's Heritage Strategy and Englefield Lodge (230 Fitzgerald Avenue).

Reference:

16/890895

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to update the Council on the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s ‘Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch’ (the ‘Recovery Programme’). Also to update the Council on the development of the City Council’s Heritage Strategy and the situation with regards to the building known as ‘Englefield Lodge’, located at 230 Fitzgerald Avenue and other heritage structures at risk.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee resolution number CNCL/2016/00304:

‘That the Council request a report to the Communities Housing and Economic Development Committee on:

1 .Englefield Lodge

2. Other Heritage Structures at risk

3. An update on the Heritage Strategy and the Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the summary nature of the report.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the update report and attachments

a.         Heritage Strategy update

b.         Englefield Lodge Statement of Significance, Attachment A

c.         Englefield Lodge Aerial Photograph and District Plan Map, Attachment B

d.         Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch, Attachment C

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council’s Heritage Strategy has been delayed as a result of limited staff availability due to the significant demands on staff time from the District Plan Review Project which has extended well into 2016.  Significant work for staff is still being generated by this project from both submissions and requests for information from the Independent Hearings Panel.  Development of the Heritage Strategy is programmed to commence during this financial year.

4.2       Englefield Lodge is a privately owned structure and although it is a protected item in the Council’s District Plan, the pace and extent of repair works or other required actions is determined solely by the owner and other parties with an interest in the property (insurance companies and/or mortgage holders, etc.).  Council staff have contacted the owners of the building on several occasions to offer advice. As with all heritage buildings, the owners of Englefield Lodge have been advised that they would be eligible to apply for grant assistance from the Council if there were funding shortfalls for the required repair works. They have also been made aware that Council staff are available to assist with resource and building consent advice if and when required. An aerial map and the Statement of Significance are enclosed in Attachment A and B for information.

4.3       All heritage buildings listed in the Christchurch City Plan have the protection given under that document and the Resource Management Act. The Proposed Replacement Christchurch City Plan is currently being reviewed by the Independent Hearings Panel and the level of heritage protection afforded to each category of proposed protected status, ‘Significant’ or ‘Highly Significant’ will be determined by the decisions from the Independent Hearings Panel. As noted above all heritage building owners are eligible to apply for Heritage Incentive Grant or Central City Landmark Heritage Grant assistance from Council and Council staff are available to provide free heritage advice.

4.4       The Recovery Programme has been drafted by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and reviewed by their consultant Jane Black and the proposed final document is enclosed as Appendix C. Council Heritage Staff have contributed towards this Recovery Programme.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Englefield Lodge Statement of Significance

142

b

Englefield Lodge Aerial Photograph and District Plan Map

146

c

Heritage Buildings and Places Recovery Programme for Greater Christchurch

147

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

9.        Heritage Incentive Grants Six Monthly Report September 2016

Reference:

16/892996

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee on Heritage Incentive Grants and Conservation Covenant Consents approved during the period 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 and to advise the Committee of any covenants removed under the delegated authority of the General Manager Strategy and Transformation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee reporting requirements.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the summary nature of the report.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

3.1          Receive the Heritage Incentive Grant and Conservation Covenant summary report for       the period 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Table 1 provides a list of grants and covenants approved for the whole year including those between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2016.

4.2       Uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund was brisk in the first part of the financial year. The second half of the financial year has seen most of the remaining funds allocated. There is a small amount of $6,212 which has not been able to be allocated.

4.3       Table 1 Heritage Incentive grants approved by Committee and/or Council for the full 2015/2016 financial year:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund

$740,800

Commitment from 2014/2015 to 98-100 Chester Street East

$1,440

Approved grant to 236 Papanui Road

$55,725

Approved grant to 5 Norwich Quay Lyttelton

$333,548

Approved grant to 211 Manchester Street, Shands Emporium

$172,219

Approved grant to 88A Clyde Road, Ilam

$76,216

Approved additional grant to 6 Godley Quay, Lyttelton

$27,013

Proposed grant to 13 Winchester Street, Lyttelton

$68,427

Total Available Funds 2015/2016

$6,212

 

 

5.   Covenant consents

5.1       Delegated authority given to the General Manager Strategy and Transformation for the removal of covenants following the demolition of the building as a result of the earthquakes or for the undertaking of minor works has been used on just one occasion in the last six months as listed below:

181 High Street, removal and re-registration of an existing covenant onto a new title following boundary adjustments for the former McKenzie & Willis façade.

 

6.   Grant Work Progress

6.1       Work is continuing on a number of grant funded projects including the two houses on the west end of Chester Street East, numbers 86 and 88. Number 86 is nearing completion and re-occupation by the owner. Work has been completed on the former McKenzie & Willis stone façade at the junction of High Street and Tuam Streets.  Work is continuing on the renovation of the Harbour Board Building on Norwich Quay in Lyttelton and work has now begun on repairs to the Red House in Cranmer Square.  Work is underway on the Shands Emporium building currently located at the back of the Trinity Octagonal Church at the Manchester and Worcester Street corner.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

10.    Approval of an extension of time for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for 181 Barbadoes Street

Reference:

16/943164

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee for an extension of time of eighteen months for a previously approved Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building located at 181 Barbadoes Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines and Policy of the Central City Heritage Landmark Grant scheme.  This requires approval from the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee for extensions of time in the uptake of approved heritage grants.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.2   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the Long Term Plan.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve an extension of time of eighteen months for the uptake of the Central City Landmark Heritage grant previously approved for 181 Barbadoes Street, Christchurch.  The new completion date for the project would be 26 February 2018.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Activity: Heritage Protection

4.2       Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines

4.3       The eighteen month deadline for the grant was September 2016.  The works covered by the grant have not been undertaken due unforeseen complications with contaminated ground on the adjacent site and requirements for detailed geotechnical reports and further work on the foundation design to underpin the building.  These have been resolved and the works can now be undertaken.  Consequently the applicants are seeking an extension of time to enable them to undertake the works in the next eighteen months.

 

5.   Context/Background

Brief History of the building and renovation project.

5.1       It is proposed to partially fund the repair and upgrade of the former Community of the Sacred Name building at the corner of Barbadoes Street and St Asaph Street – listed Group 1 in the Christchurch City Plan and registered Category I with ‘Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’, registration 4387.  This two storey building was built in phases beginning circa 1894 with the last phase being a single storey masonry extension on the south-western side. 

5.2       The former Community of the Sacred Name Building has been identified as having strong architectural integrity and distinction particularly in the form of the Cyril Mountfort designed chapel.  The chapel includes distinctive lancet shaped stained glass windows and an unusual fully timber lined interior.  As it was a convent, the building was screened from public view for most of the last century with high, solid fencing around the entire site boundary.  The building remained in the same use and has been largely unaltered for many years and is therefore an excellent record of architecture from the turn of the twentieth century.

5.3       The building suffered damage from the recent series of earthquakes with the collapse of chimneys and a portion of brick wall on the western side.  However, the bulk of the building is timber framed with match board internal lining and this has performed well throughout the earthquake sequence.  The current strength of the bulk of the building has been assessed as approximately fifty per cent of New Build Standard (NBS) and the building is not classed as earthquake proneThe building needs repairs and remodelling to allow it to function as the new base for the Home and Family Trust.  As part of the remodelling the organisation is aiming to include a public café accessed from St Asaph Street.

5.4       The building has been transferred into the ownership of the Home and Family Trust on an ‘as is where is’ basis and hence there is no insurance pay-out to fund the earthquake repairs.  The proposal is to conserve, repair and seismically strengthen the building for use as an office and counselling facility.  The proposed repair and upgrade work has been estimated at $2,600,000 exclusive of GST (Rawlinson’s Quantity Surveyors in November 2014).  A substantial amount of work is required to the sub structure of the building in order to upgrade and modernise the foundations.  The superstructure requires less work but will be strengthened with a number of different structural methods.  These actions should strengthen the building to 100 per cent of NBS.  A further key component of the works is to install a new fire sprinkler system which will protect the timber buildings against the considerable risk of fire.

5.5       The building would be a landmark on St Asaph Street, one of the main routes between the city centre and the south eastern suburbs and beyond to the port of Lyttelton.  The building is close to the Christchurch Polytechnic and is within walking distance to the southern end of High Street with its surviving group of heritage buildings.  The proposed works will remove the high fencing and open up the southern façade to view.  The public will be afforded access via a public café and associated landscaped garden area.  The intention of the Trust is to retain as much of the form and materials of the interior and in particular to conserve the highly important chapel.  The former owners of the site will retain ownership of the adjacent site and will have access to the chapel.

5.6       The building at 181 Barbadoes Street is owned by ‘Home and Family Trust’. 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

11.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 34 St David's Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

16/924716

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

941 8816

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work at the dwelling at 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the dwelling and the amount of funding requested being less than $500, 000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $26,852.00 for conservation and maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering a 15 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage dwelling. This is a retrospective application that otherwise meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The dwelling will continue to be a notable feature in the streetscape and townscape of Lyttelton.

·     With the completion of the works outlined, the roofing structure will be upgraded and the dwelling made watertight, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to a single building; however, the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The dwelling at 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton is listed as a ‘Notable’ building in the Banks Peninsula District Plan and as a ‘Significant’ Building in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The building is not registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Ms Greer Swinard. The dwelling has not been the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

 

Photograph September 2012, Brendan Smyth

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The dwelling is a two storey weatherboard early colonial cottage with a corrugated iron roof. It is constructed in the traditional saltbox design, with a second gable immediately behind. A simple bracketed veranda wraps around three sides of the dwelling, which has a symmetrical façade and a pair of dormer windows to the first floor. Dating from 1856 it is one of Lyttelton’s earlier colonial dwellings, and remains largely unaltered since its construction.

6.2       The dwelling sustained moderate damage during the 2010-11 earthquakes, with the rear retaining wall and the chimney collapsing and requiring deconstruction. These have been granted resource consent for reconstruction (RMA 92030178), and the works are underway with a replica chimney and a new retaining wall being almost completed. The remainder of the structure sustained only minor damage and repairs are near completion on the interior and exterior, including part of the roof (east elevation) being replaced. These works are funded by EQC. However, during the repairs the owner made the decision to have the remainder of the roof replaced as it was in need of replacement and failing in areas. She also replaced rotten and borer damaged fascia boards and timberwork, had some additional structural upgrades made to the roof ridge structure to protect the building from future seismic activity, and renewed the flashings and gutters as necessary. Only the maintenance and conservation works to the roof are included in this grant application as they were not earthquake damage and consequently not covered by EQC.

6.3       The roofing work was required to be completed as a matter of urgency to prevent water damage to the dwelling, and was consequently undertaken prior to the grant application being made resulting in a retrospective grant application.

6.4       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to retain and protect the heritage fabric of the dwelling. With the completion of the works outlined the building is weatherproof and structurally upgraded, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

6.5       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Re-roofing (excluding east elevation)

$13,625.00

Replace guttering

$2,640.00

Roof structure upgrade and timber replacement

$10587.00

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$26,852.00

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$13,426.00

 

 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10

The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

6.9.1      Christchurch Recovery Strategy

6.9.2      Banks Peninsula District Plan

6.9.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.9.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.9.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.9.6      International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$727,338.00

 

6.10    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.12    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.13    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A Limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant with a life of fifteen years being suggested as an appropriate length of time.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent has been granted for the works in this application (RMA 92030178).

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This is a retrospective application that otherwise meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature in the street scene and townscape of Lyttelton.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be weatherproofed and structurally upgraded and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and maintenance of the building.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant to a single building however the sum is not significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($8,056.00) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$8,056.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$732,744.00

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

34 St David's Street, Lyttelton Statement of Significance

185

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

12.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

16/947403

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

941 8816

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500, 000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $29,250.00 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the protected heritage building located at 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature in the townscape and historic commercial streetscape of Lyttelton.

·     With the completion of the works outlined, the building will meet Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to a single building; however, the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton is listed as a ‘Notable’ building in the Banks Peninsula District Plan and as a ‘Significant’ Building in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The building is not registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Ms Katherine Belton. The building was the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding to the preceding owner. A grant of $18,923.00 was made in August 2009 for maintenance, conservation and fire upgrade works to the building, with a 15 year Limited Conservation Covenant registered against the title at that time. The Operational Guidelines allow for future grant applications 5 years after a grant is made.

Photograph September 2012, Brendan Smyth

 

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       13 Oxford Street is a late nineteenth century, two storey commercial building designed in the classical style. Originally two separate offices, the first floor has since been converted to residential use with the ground floor now operating as a gallery. Built in 1888, the architecture is unusual for its extensive use of corrugated iron as a cladding, giving the building the nick name of “The Tin Palace”. The two juxtaposed entrance doors (one for each floor) and the slim corner window are also unusual architectural features, and additional architectural detailing includes soffit modillions and the window pediment. The Oxford Street facade has three first floor sash windows and there is a large double sash window to the ground floor. The first floor is expressed with a step-out in the façade and there is a substantial eaves overhang to the Oxford Street façade.

6.2       The building is the sole survivor of a group of listed commercial buildings on Oxford Street that had links back to the rebuilding of Lyttelton after the fire of October 1870. It also has a distinct social history being the location of a legal firm, a shipping agency, a grain merchant and a dentist.

6.3       The building sustained moderate damage during the 2010-11 earthquakes, including the collapse of the chimney stack, foundation damage and damage from the collapse and subsequent demolition of the adjacent buildings.  Extensive re-piling, re-levelling and foundation repair works are required, as well as other related interior repairs and maintenance works, and the applicant is seeking to make structural upgrades and reinstate the chimney breast and fireplace internally. 

6.4       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to retain and protect the heritage fabric of the building. With the completion of the works outlined the building will meet the NZ Building Code requirements, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

6.5       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Ring foundation repairs

$1,200.00

Re-piling and re-levelling

$27,500.00

Chimney related steel work

$3,500.00

Bracing and upgrade works and interior repairs

$22,787.00

Resource Consent fee

$1,757.00

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$56,744.00

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works and 100% of resource consent fee)

$29,250.00

 

 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10

The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

6.9.1      Christchurch Recovery Strategy

6.9.2      Banks Peninsula District Plan

6.9.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.9.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.9.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.9.6      International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Proposed grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$698,088.00

 

6.10    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.12    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.13    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A Limited Conservation Covenant will be required in association with this grant with a life of twenty years being suggested as an appropriate length of time.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent and covenant consent will be required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature in the commercial street scene and townscape of Lyttelton.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and meet Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and maintenance of the building.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant to a single building; however the sum is not significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($18,253.00) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Proposed grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$18,253.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$709,085.00

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton, Statement of Significance

195

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

13.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

Reference:

16/954084

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

941 8052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the War Memorial at 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500, 000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,312 for conservation and maintenance to the protected heritage structure located at 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and retention of this high significance heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The proposed work completes previous restoration and strengthening works undertaken by the building’s owners, finalising elements that were outside the scope of the main earthquake repairs of the structure.

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature adjacent to the playing fields of Christchurch Boys High School, visible from Straven Road.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Given how small a grant this is, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The shrine at 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch is listed as s a ‘High Significance’ building in the proposed Replacement Christchurch District Plan. The building is not listed with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Christchurch Boys’ High School Board of Trustees. No previous grant has been made for this building.

Photograph April 2016, Gareth Wright

 

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The War Memorial at 39 Kahu Road is a memorial dedicated to the 142 former pupils of Christchurch Boys’ High School who died during World War I. The memorial, designed in the form of a shrine was dedicated at a ceremony in 1926. It was funded by old boys and friends of the school. As a memorial it has high social, historical and cultural significance and is an intrinsic part of the development of the Christchurch Boys’ High School site following its relocation in the mid-1920s.

6.2       The shrine was designed by Christchurch architect Maurice James Guthrie, an ex-Christchurch Boys’ High School pupil, and built by local stonemason Henry Silvester. Within the shrine is a granite sarcophagus with the inscribed words ‘Their name liveth forevermore’ and the 142 names of the fallen are inscribed on two bronze panels within the monument.

6.3       The structure was badly damaged during the 2010-11 earthquakes, and required extensive seismic reinforcement and repairs to ensure safe use of the memorial could be resumed and maintained for the future. These repairs have been undertaken and were completed in time for the school to use the memorial during their Anzac Day commemorations.

6.4       The proposed grant would support further work that was identified by the conservation architect and heritage consultant as being desirable to retain the structure in good repair, but that was not deemed necessary to make the memorial seismically safe. This includes the repair and hot wax treatment of the bronze panels and repair of damaged stonework to the main arch.

6.5       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Clean, repair and seal bronze honours boards

$4,363.31

Repair compression damage to arch stones

$1,300.00

Access equipment for arch repair

$960.00

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$6,623.31

 

6.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$3,312.00

 

 

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10

The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

6.9.1      Christchurch Recovery Strategy

6.9.2      Christchurch operative City Plan and proposed Replacement District Plan

6.9.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.9.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.9.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.9.6      International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Proposed grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Proposed grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$3,312.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$694,776.00

 

6.10    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.12    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.13    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. However, as this proposed grant is below the threshold level, no Conservation Covenant will be required.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. No resource consent or covenant consent will be required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this high significance heritage structure. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The proposed work completes previous restoration and strengthening works undertaken by the building’s owners, finalising elements that were outside the scope of the main earthquake repairs of the structure.

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature adjacent to the playing fields of Christchurch Boys High School, visible from Straven Road.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Given how small a grant this is, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($1,987.00) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                     

$740,800.00

Proposed grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Proposed grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Proposed grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$1,987.00

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$696,101.00

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for works to a high significance building, at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

39 Kahu Road - War Memorial - Statement of Significance

205

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

14.    June 2016 Christchurch Retail Report

Reference:

16/917394

Contact:

Claire Bryant

claire.bryant@ccc.govt.nz

941 8876

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is staff generated and provides a summary of the key points in the annual retail report (to June 2016) prepared for the Council by MarketView.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the June 2016 Christchurch Retail report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The retail sector is the third largest provider of jobs in Christchurch after the Professional Services and Health Services sectors.  Between the March 2015 and March 2016 quarters the number of jobs in the retail sector increased by 0.1% compared to a 2.2% increase in all employment in Christchurch (Statistics New Zealand).

 

3.2       MarketView provide an annual retail sector report (Attachment A) which tracks the economic recovery of the retail sector.  This is the second annual report and, although meaningful trends will only be identified over time, some emerging trends are noted in this report.  The report covers the period between June 2015 and June 2016 and the findings are based on electronic card transactions sourced from Bank of New Zealand cardholders (650,000 active cardholders) and the Paymark merchant database used by 75% of New Zealand retailers.  Statistics New Zealand report that just under 70% of all retail spending is paid for with an electronic card.

 

3.3       The total value of retail spending by cardholders in Christchurch over the year to June 2016 was just over $5 billion, a growth rate of only 0.05% and considerably lower than the 3.3% growth rate of retail spending in the rest of New Zealand.  The number of transactions in Christchurch grew by 2.3%, about half of last year’s growth rate and exactly half the national growth rate of 4.6%. 

 

3.4       It is positive to see International cardholders spend increase by 12.4%, slightly above the national increase of 11.4%, suggesting Christchurch is starting to claw-back some visitor market share and reflecting the impact of the Air China Southern flights into Christchurch.  Once again the location with the greatest increase in the value of retail spending was Banks Peninsula (up by 15.4%).  Given there were four less visits from cruise ships and a 2% drop in the growth rate of passenger numbers over the year to June 2016, the increased retail spending may reflect either an increased spend per passenger or considerably more domestic tourism (e.g. freedom campers, Christchurch weekend trips).

 

3.5       While half of all retail spend is spent in the west of the city, the east continues to have steadily positive growth rates.  As one third of all retail expenditure is in supermarkets, the increase in the east may relate to the opening of Wainoni Pak n Save in August 2015 and Redcliffs New World in October 2015.  The Four Avenues (city) location experienced only a small (0.5%) increase in retail spending and the ongoing rebuild in the city should be reflected in further retail growth in next year's report.

 

3.6       The fastest growing (up 5.2%) store category spend was the Food and Beverages category replacing last year’s Hardware/Homeware category.  The Food and Beverages category includes takeaways, cafes and restaurants(but not supermarkets) so the increase may reflect an increasingly busy population (choosing the convenience) or a population with more discretionary income due to low inflation (0.4% increase year-on-year to June 2016) and choosing to spend it eating out.  With low inflation and an estimated population growth rate of between 1-2% any spending (increase or decrease) exceeding the population growth rate reflects a real change.

 

3.7       Over the year, there was a net cash inflow into Christchurch of $3.73 billion.  However this is slightly lower than last year’s inflow and is reflected in the decreased spend value of cardholders based in Christchurch (by -0.02%) and in Waimakariri (by -5.2%) and a slower growth rate in value spend by cardholders based outside the Canterbury region. 

 

3.8       With only two reports on hand, any comment on trends is very preliminary however the 2016 report suggests a slowing rate of growth in retail spend.  The 2016 report data also suggests regular, consistent retail patterns related to the time of the year, week or day when cardholders spend and, over the year to June 2016, Christchurch residents were more loyal to local retail (82.1%) than people living in other parts of New Zealand were to their local retailers (65.4%).

 

3.9       The total spent on online retail was $530.55m.  While the rate of growth in online spending by Christchurch cardholders is slowing compared to 2015, the online share of total retail spend by Christchurch cardholders increased by 1.5%.  The fastest growing online spending was in the Food and Beverages category which ties into the 5.2% increase in spending in this category overall and probably reflects an increase in online pre-orders (including phone apps).

 

3.10    Of all online spending, 48.6% ($257.84m) was spent on international websites – 3.2% more than last year and 3.4% more than the national spend indicating that Christchurch cardholders are spending more on offshore retail than the rest of New Zealand.  It is likely, given global trends that the majority of this expenditure was with the FAANG (Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) group of firms.  As of October 2016 the government will collect 15% GST on off-shore internet services, such as iTunes, book purchases and Netflix, and any increased spend on these retail products and services will be reflected in next year’s annual report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Christchurch Retail Report (MarketView) 2016

213

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Adele Radburnd - Senior Policy Planner

Gavin Thomas - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Emma Davis - Head of Human Resources

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

15     Community Facilities Rebuild Update August 2016

Reference:

16/926439

Contact:

Darren Moses

darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz

021 377023

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to be informed about the status of the priority projects being delivered by Community Facilities Rebuild for the month of August 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       Not applicable to this information-only report.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This information report provides a monthly programme update on some of the key Community Facilities Rebuild activities for reporting from July 2016 to August 2016.

4.1.1      A summary of the Community Facilities projects can be found in Attachment One and a summary of the Heritage Facilities can be found in Attachment Two.

4.2       The programme in its entirety is currently scheduled to be completed by December 2017.  This includes all of the new build/rebuild projects and all of the repair schemes.  The programme is also tracking to be delivered within the budget enveloped set by Council in the 2015 -2025 Long Term Plan.

4.3       The Nga Puna Wai sports hub is also now reporting through this programme of work.  An update on that project can be found as Attachment Three.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council is running a major earthquake repair and rebuild programme, looking at the future of the 1,600 residential and non-residential buildings it owns.  This work is undertaken by the Community Facilities Rebuild.

·   Of these 1,600 facilities, 600 buildings are from Social Housing which are reported separately, leaving the remaining Heritage and Community Facilities for this Committee to consider.

The management of Health and safety on all Community Facility rebuild sites is paramount.  Council is a signatory to the Canterbury Rebuild Safety Charter.  The team are taking all practicable steps to ensure we met all of our requirements under the current and future HSE legislation.  To date, in the current financial year we have recorded nil lost time injuries across the many live construction sites we are accountable for.  The table below is a record of HSE activity on our site for June 2016 and whole of financial year data.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

CHED Committee 01 September 2016 Community Facilities Rebuild_ATTACHMENT ONE Already Approved + Tranche 1 + Tranche 2 Projects

227

b

CHED Committee September 2016 CFR Report ATTACHMENT 2 Heritage Programme

262

c

CHED Committee 01 Sept ATTACHMENT 3 Nga Puna Wai Sports Hub Stage 1 Update

299

 

 

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

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Approved By

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

16.    Anchor Projects and Major Facilities Report August 2016

Reference:

16/938006

Contact:

Peter Vause

peter.Vause@ccc.govt.nz

9418856

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide a monthly status update on the projects being delivered by the Anchor Projects and Major Facilities Unit of the City Services-Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services.

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       This information report provides a monthly programme update on Anchor and Major Projects being delivered as part of Council’s Long Term Plan and the Central City Recovery Plan.

 

 

 

4.   Background

4.1       The construction of Anchor projects is part of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

4.2       The Cost Sharing Agreement signed between the Crown and the Council forms the basis for each Anchor project for cost, funding, delivery responsibility, governance arrangement, ownership, operating cost liability and estimated project completion date.

4.3       In addition to the Anchor projects, Council’s Long Term Plan has a significant city wide investment programme for Major Facilities.

5.   Comment

 

5.1       New Central Library: A site blessing is scheduled for 26 August 2016 with start of construction on site scheduled for 5 September 2016.

 

5.2       Christchurch Town Hall: James Hay concrete slabs have been removed and the site is being prepared for new concrete works.

 

5.3       Performing Arts Precinct: Construction of The Piano (the Music Centre of Christchurch's building) is almost complete with the first events planned for August 2016 and the official opening on 16 September 2016.

 

5.4       Metro Sports Facility: The preliminary design will be presented to Council for approval on 8 September 2016.

 

5.5       QEII - Recreation and Sport Centre: Design and build tenders closed on 1 August 2016 and these are currently being evaluated.  A report recommending tender acceptance will be considered by Council on 22 September 2016.

 

5.6       New Hornby Library and South West Recreation and Sport Centre: Scoping studies for the Library and the combined facility (Library and Pool) have been finalised.

 

5.7       Provincial Chambers – Detailed Design for Stage 1 is progressing.  An EOI for suitably qualified contractors will be issued in September 2016.  Tender documents will be issued to shortlisted companies in December 2016.

 

5.8       Our City - Ōtautahi –  A concept design for strengthening and repair strategies has been completed.  The project team are now considering how the building might accommodate future uses.

 

5.9       Lichfield Carpark Rebuild:  Sod turning for the project took place on 5 August 2016.

 

5.10    Linwood Woolston Pool – This project is planned to commence in FY2018/19.  A cross functional project team has been assembled to consider how this project can contribute to Linwood Woolston urban regeneration, and to investigate opportunities for co-ordination across a range of Community stakeholders such as the Ministry of Education, Eastgate.

 

6.  Financial Implications

 

6.1       There are no financial implications to the staff recommendation.  The programme funding will be managed under the Crown Cost Share agreement and through normal Council planning and approval processes as appropriate.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Anchor and Major Facilities CHED Report 2016-08-12

303

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Vause - Acting Manager Anchor Projects and Facilities Rebuild

Approved By

Peter Ryan - Head of Performance Management

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

 

 


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

17.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

01 September 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

18

Public Excluded Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 4 August 2016

 

 

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

 

19

Owner Initiated Demolition of Social Housing Units

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

Commercial negotiations with the contractor are yet to be finalised

30 November 2016

Outcome of the report can be released after the contract has been awarded to the demolition panel contractor