Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 8 September 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

1 September 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

Council - Terms of Reference

 

 

Chair

The Mayor

Membership

The Mayor and all Councillors are members of Council

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

To be separately considered

 

 

The Council has the power to: (these powers cannot legally be delegated)

·         Make a rate

·         Make a bylaw

·         Borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan

·         Adopt a long-term plan, annual plan or annual report

·         Appoint a Chief Executive

·         Adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long term plan or the preparation of the local governance statement

·         Adopt a remuneration and employment policy

 

The Council is also responsible for:

·         Reviewing and making decisions, when required, on the District Plan

·         Approving all Council strategy and policy, except that specifically delegated to a committee or subcommittee

·         Adoption of, and amendment to, Committee Terms of Reference, Standing Orders and Code of Conduct

·         Approving or amending the Triennial Agreement  and Local Governance Statement

·         Reviewing and making decisions on representation reviews

·         Appointing and discharging trustees, directors or office holders to Council’s Council-Controlled Organisations  and Council Organisations, except where specifically delegated to a committee or officer, and determining the remuneration for trustees, directors or office holders

·         Dealing with issues of significant community importance

·         Monitoring progress on earthquake recovery

Considering recommendations from Council committees, subcommittees, Community Boards, the public, stakeholders and others, and making Council decisions with regard for the requirements of Sections 76 – 81 of the Local Government Act 2002

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 5

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

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

4.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

4.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

4.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

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

Akaroa-Wairewa Community Board

6.       Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 13 July 2016.............................................. 15

7.       40 Rue Jolie - Yew Cottage Options Report.......................................................................... 27

Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board

8.       Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 17 August 2016................................. 39

9.       Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 3 August 2016................................... 57

Shirley-Papanui Community Board

10.     Chancellor Street Footbridge................................................................................................. 61

11.     Proposed Speed Limit Changes Shirley/Papanui Ward....................................................... 77

12.     Proposed Shirley Community Centre Rebuild Request for Delegated Authority............. 91

13.     Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 3 August 2016............................................ 93

14.     Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 17 August 2016........................................ 109

Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board

15.     Lease Surrender - Spreydon Bowling Club and Granting of New Lease to Kereru Sports Club................................................................................................................................................ 117

16.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016.................................. 129

17.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 19 August 2016................................ 137

Burwood-Pegasus Community Board

18.     Berm Trees in Subdivisons.................................................................................................... 143

19.     Proposed Speed Limit Change Dunlops Road.................................................................... 145

20.     Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 1 August 2016....................................... 153

Fendalton-Waimairi Community Board

21.     Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 1 August 2016................................... 171

22.     Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 15 August 2016................................. 177

23.     Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton/Waimairi Ward Area..................................... 183

Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board

24.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016...................................... 197

Riccarton-Wigram Community Board

25.     Halswell Skate and Recreation Park - Site Selection ........................................................ 211

26.     Notice of Motion - Riccarton Service Centre .................................................................... 263

27.     Riccarton/Wigram - Recently Vested Reserves Through Subdivisions - Namings and Classifications........................................................................................................................ 269

28.     Riccarton/Wigram Ward - Proposed Speed Limit Changes ............................................. 289

29.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 27 July 2016.......................................... 309

30.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016...................................... 315

31.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 16 August 2016.................................... 321

Audit and Risk Management Committee

32.     Audit New Zealand - Audit Arrangements Letter.............................................................. 345

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

33.     South Library and Beckenham Service Centre Repair and Strengthening Options Report 361

Strategy and Finance Committee

34.     Transitional City Projects - Property Owner Incentive Programme................................. 401

35.     Development Christchurch Limited Update....................................................................... 409

36.     Rates Issues for Properties Affected by District Plan Changes.......................................... 415

37.     Performance report for the year to 30 June 2016............................................................. 427

STAFF REPORTS

38.     Transfer of City Housing Land.............................................................................................. 477

39.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 488  

 

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

An apology was received from Councillor Gough.

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 Council meeting held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

A period of up to 30 minutes for deputations that have made application and been approved by the Chairperson.

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.  


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 25 August 2016

Time:                                    9.35am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor David East

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Ali Jones

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

25 August 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00349

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 11 August 2016 be confirmed.

AND

That the minutes of the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee meeting held on 4 August 2016 be received.

AND

That the minutes of the Council Metropolitan Funding Panel meeting held on 9 August 2016 be confirmed.

AND

That the minutes of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held on 4 August be received.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

25. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00350

That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Thursday, 25 August 2016.

26.       The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project - Options for Funding Purchase of Building

28.       Insurance Issues Relating To 2010/11 Earthquakes

29.       Progress Update on Cost Sharing Agreement Refresh

30.       Future Alignment of Tourism Events and Economic Development (TEED) Activities

31.       2016/17 Insurance Renewal

32.       Infrastructure Insurance Update

33.       Organics Processing Plant

Mayor/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                                            Carried

 

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

4.1.1   Lily Peas Blossom, Lavendulla Louella, Maleficent and Ruby Ravenfeather of the Christchurch Faerie Circle spoke to the Council regarding support for a Christchurch Faerie Festival.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

4.2.1   Alex Skinner, Chairperson, Pam Sharpe, Deputy Chairperson and Cate Kearney, Chief Executive will speak on behalf of the Otautahi Community Housing Trust regarding Item 16 - Social Housing Assets Lease to Otautahi Community Housing Trust.

Deputy Mayor Buck and Councillors Lonsdale and Turner declared an interest in item 16 and took no part in the discussion or decision making.

16. Social Housing Assets lease to Otautahi Community Housing Trust

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00351

That the Council

 

1.         Approve, acknowledging that the registration process is underway as a Community Housing Provider, the entering into of the deed of lease to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust of the operable social housing units commencing 3 October 2016, in the form attached to the report contained in the Agenda; and

2.         Delegate to the General Manager, City Services authority to negotiate any minor amendments to the Deed of Lease as considered necessary or appropriate and to execute the deed on behalf of the Council.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                           Carried

 

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

4.2.2   Jane Harrison, Leslie Fulton and Jason Mill of the Bridge South Brighton Trust will speak regarding Item 26 The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project – Options for Funding Purchase of Building.

 


 

26. The Bridge South Brighton Community Hub Project - Options for Funding Purchase of Building

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00352

That the Council:

1.         Note the contents of this report.

2.         Allocate $325,000 from the Capital Endowment Fund to The Bridge South Brighton Trust as a contribution towards the purchase of the building at 51 Bridge Street, South Brighton on the condition that should the building be sold within 10 years of receiving the grant that the full amount of $325,000 will be repaid to Council from the gross sale proceeds.

3.         Note that The Bridge South Brighton Trust is agreeable to the condition of a covenant being registered against the title.

4.         Agree to register the Council’s interest in the property at 51 Bridge Street, South Brighton, by way of a covenant against the title.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                    Carried Unanimously

The meeting adjourned at 11.11am and resumed at 11.45am

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

4.2.3   Tim Sintes, Darrell Latham, Warwick Schaffer and Karina Hay will speak on behalf of Christchurch Coastal Residents United regarding Item 14, Peer Review of the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd 2015 Coastal Hazard Assessment.

Mayor Dalziel left the meeting at 12.05 pm at which point Deputy Mayor Buck assumed the chair.

Councillor Turner left the meeting at 12.13pm and returned at 12.15pm.

14. Peer Review Report of the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd 2015 Coastal Hazard Assessment Stage Two Report.

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00353

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Independent Peer Review report of the Tonkin & Taylor Ltd 2015 Coastal Hazard Assessment Stage Two Report.

2.         Request that staff provide a report back within one month to a Council meeting detailing the programme of work that will be undertaken in response to the recommendations in the Independent Expert Panel’s report.

3.         Noting the advice of the Peer Review Panel to remove the hazard maps 'until the legal requirements of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement are complete because the current mapping may be legally unsound” (bullet points 2 & 3 of ‘the way forward’) direct the Chief Executive to urgently review the Coastal Hazard information that have been placed on Land Information Memoranda and report back to the next council meeting.

Note: That the staff report omitted a paragraph under the details for the Council resolution of 10 December 2015 which should have been included as follows:

3.c.  That LIM notations following receipt of the peer review report be reviewed acknowledging the findings of the report.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

The meeting adjourned at 1.00pm and resumed at 2.06pm at which time Mayor Dalziel returned to the meeting and resumed the chair.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Chief Executive's Report

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00354

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 2 August 2016

7.   Elected Member Information Exchange - North Avon Road Street Renewal Funding

 

No Council decision was required for this item as a report on the subject is due to be considered by a joint meeting of the Burwood/Pegasus, Hagley/Ferrymead and Shirley/Papanui Community Board’s on 15 September 2016.

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee – 4 August 2016

8.   Christchurch City Development Forum Chairperson's Report

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00355

             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

 


 

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee – 4 August 2016

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

 

Council Decision

The item was left to lie on the table until the next Council meeting.

 

10. Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 4 August 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer item 3.

 

11. Council - Metropolitan Funding Minutes - 9 August 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer Item 3.

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee –

4 August 2016

12. St Asaph Street and Hagley Avenue Speed Limits

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00356

Noting the announcement yesterday about the location of the Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery School in St Asaph Street, the location of the Metro Sports Facility and to correct some anomalies in the Bylaw; the Council requests that staff undertake a further review of the central city speed limits, to be reported back by 30 June 2017.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                            Carried

 

13. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 4 August 2016

 

Council Decision

Refer item 3.

 


 

15. Infringement Fees under the Litter Act 1979 (following public notice)

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00357

That the Council:

1.         Resolves under section 13 of the Litter Act 1979 to change and increase the infringement fees for infringement offences under the Litter Act 1979 as follows:

a.         That the maximum infringement fee for littering in the Christchurch District is $400.

b.         The following offence descriptors and graduated scale of infringement fees apply in the Christchurch District:

Infringement

Fee

Descriptors for typical offences

$100

Depositing litter of less than 1 litre in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$200

Depositing litter from 1 to 20 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$300

Depositing litter from 20 to 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$400

Depositing litter over 120 litres in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

$400

Depositing offensive, commercial or hazardous waste in a public place or on private land without the occupier’s consent

c.         Where an offence fits more than one descriptor, the higher infringement fee applies.

d.         For a repeat of any litter offence within 12 months, the maximum infringement fee level applies.

2.         Resolves to instruct staff to advise the New Zealand Police of the change and increases in infringement fees under the Litter Act 1979 as they apply to the Christchurch District.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

17. Notice of Motion

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00358

It was resolved, pursuant to Standing Order 3.12.1.(b), on the motion of Mayor Dalziel, seconded by Councillor Turner that item 17 – Notice of Motion regarding City Care be adjourned to the first business meeting of the new Council following the October 2016 election. The venue of the meeting will be the Council Chamber.

Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 


 

18. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00359

That Tom Hooper of Christchurch Development Corporation, remain after the public have been excluded for Item 30 of the public excluded agenda as he has knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

AND

That at 2.37pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 325 to 326 of the agenda and pages 36 to 37 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                                               Carried

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4:42pm at which time the meeting concluded.

   

 

CONFIRMED THIS 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

6.        Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 13 July 2016

Reference:

16/828310

Contact:

Liz Carter

liz.carter@ccc.govt.nz

941-5682

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board held a meeting on 13 July 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board meeting held

13 July 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board - 13 July 2016

16

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board  – 10 August 2016

 

7.        40 Rue Jolie - Yew Cottage Options Report

Reference:

16/960609

Contact:

Dan Egerton

dan.egerton@ccc.govt.nz

941-8477

 

 

 

 

1.  Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Consideration

 

1.         Staff reported to the Board that additional information had come to hand since the issuing of the agenda, which showed that the property was a “Strategic Asset” under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  As such there was a consultation requirement under the Local Government Act should the Council intend to dispose of the property.

2.         The Board was concerned at the lack of maintenance to the cottage and its surrounds and was supportive of an offer from the community to tidy the grounds.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board:

1.         Recommend to Council

a.         That Yew Cottage, located at 40 Rue Jolie, legally described as Section III Town of Akaroa, is sold on the open market; and

b.         The Council places a land covenant on the property to ensure the protection of the heritage values; and

c.         The Manager, Property Consultancy is delegated the authority to do all things necessary, in his sole discretion, to complete the sale  provided  that the sale price is not less than 10% of a current registered market valuation.

Amended Staff Recommendation

That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board recommend to Council:

 

1.            To undertake consultation in accordance with section 97 of the Local Government Act 2002 on the intention to dispose of 40 Rue Jolie, Akaroa, legally described as Section III Town of Akaroa, by selling the property on the open market with a land covenant on the property to ensure the protection of the heritage values

 

2.            That a consultation document on the intention to dispose of 40 Rue Jolie be prepared and consultation commenced. [OR That the intention to dispose of 40 Rue Jolie be included in the consultation document prepared for the 2017/2018 Annual Plan/Long Term Plan amendments.]

 

3.            Delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy the authority to approve the consultation document and do all things necessary to implement the consultation

 

4.            Request staff to report back to the Community Board the outcome of that consultation for a decision regarding the future use of Yew Cottage, 40 Rue Jolie.

 

 

3.  Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board:

(a)          In principle supports community use of the property at 40 Rue Jolie, Akaroa and the appropriate future ownership to achieve this.

(b)          Notes the community’s interest in the heritage value of the cottage, and the social and economic value of the continued public or community ownership of the property.

That Council staff work with community groups to address maintenance issues at the property.

 

4.  Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

Noting the deputations to the meeting, the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board recommends to Council:

1.            That the decision on the matter be deferred, and that the report lie on the table.

2.            That Council staff work with the Akaroa community and community groups to identify future community uses for the building through an Expression of Interest process.

3.            That a further report be made to the Board as to community uses identified and options for the future of the property along with appropriate consultation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

40 Rue Jolie - Yew Cottage Options Report

29

 

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

40 Rue Jolie - Yew Cottage Options Report

Reference:

16/540171

Contact:

Dan Egerton

dan.egerton@ccc.govt.nz

941-8477

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board to recommend to Council that Yew Cottage, 40 Rue Jolie be sold on the open market with a land covenant to protect heritage values.

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board resolution AWCB/2016/00017 from 10 February 2016.

1.2.1   Community Board Resolved AWCB/2016/00017

The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board resolved to request staff to prepare an Options Report on the future use of the property at 40 Rue Jolie, Akaroa.

Member Haley/Member Graham Carried

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by utilising the Significance and Engagement Policy matrix.

2.1.2   There is no community engagement and consultation proposed for the decisions in this report.   

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board:

1.         Recommend to Council

a.         That Yew Cottage, located at 40 Rue Jolie, legally described as Section III Town of Akaroa, is sold on the open market; and

b.         The Council places a land covenant on the property to ensure the protection of the heritage values; and

c.         The Manager, Property Consultancy is delegated the authority to do all things necessary, in his sole discretion, to complete the sale  provided  that the sale price is not less than 10% of a current registered market valuation.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Dispose of the property on the open market (with or without a land covenant to protect the heritage values of the cottage).

·     Option 2 - Council undertake repairs to the Cottage and establish a public work for the property.            

·     Option 3 - Lease the property to a third party at a discounted rate with obligations on the lessee to undertake the repairs.

·     Option 4 - Gift the property to a third property (with or without a land covenant to protect the heritage values of the cottage).

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The heritage values of the Cottage will be protected

·     Council will receive monies from any sale

·     Council does not need to spend unbudgeted funds upgrading the cottage

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Yew Cottage will no longer be in Council ownership

 

5.   Context/Background

Yew Cottage, 40 Rue Jolie

5.1       Yew Cottage is a Council owned cottage, located at 40 Rue Jolie, Akaroa.  It has an element of heritage value.

5.2       Due to the proximity of the Akaroa Harbour the cottage floods frequently, and over the years the dwelling has slowly dilapidated.  It now requires substantial repairs to bring the dwelling up to a reasonable standard.

5.3       Other background information on the property is:

5.3.1   The site is defined as an archaeological site in the Historic Places Act; this means that no earthworks may occur at the site without being granted an Archaeological Authority from the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHTP). This is a legal requirement.

5.3.2   Council have commissioned a legal review of the property to ascertain whether there are any legal obligations pursuant to section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981 (to offer the property for sale to the former owners, or their successors). There is no such obligation in this scenario.

5.3.3   The cottage was constructed circa 1877, in all likelihood, by the then owner of the land.

5.3.4   It is a tangible reminder of a representative type of building that is characteristic of nineteenth century Akaroa. The Council’s Heritage Unit has advised that there is a number of other properties within the township that are of a similar era, and that this particular dwelling is not a 'must keep' property.

5.3.5   The site itself is a level rectangular shaped corner section with 13m of frontage onto Rue Jolie, and 45m frontage onto Rue Brittan. It is bounded to the west by the Akaroa Harbour, and the south by the bowling club. There is a vacant area behind the cottage and the harbour which is used informally as car parking for the bowling club.

5.3.6   The floor area of the cottage is 66m² and the total land area is 556m².

5.3.7   The property is not listed individually within the NZHTP register of Historic Place, Historic Areas, Waahi Tapu, and Waahi Tapu Areas, however it is incorporated within the registered Akaroa Historic Area (Register 7443) which is the area along the waterfront of Akaroa Harbour.

5.3.8   It is also listed as a notable building in the Banks Peninsula District Plan.  It is listed as a significant heritage item in the Replacement District Plan.

5.3.9   Council acquired the property in 1981 when it came on the open market.  The purpose at that time appears to be to ensure that it was not demolished and replaced by a taller structure that would create a shadow on the bowling green. It also appears that another driver for acquiring the property was so that the bowling green could be extended when required.

5.4       The rear portion of the property is currently used, informally, as car-park for the bowling club, and general parking within the area.

Process and issues

5.5       It is likely that the future use of this particular property will be of interest to the Akaroa Community.  The interest appears to be directed at the heritage value of the cottage itself, as opposed to a community use.

5.6       No consultation is legally required should Council opt to dispose of the cottage.  The Council’s obligation is to consider community views on a proposed decision before it is made in light of the significance of the decision.  The recommendation above includes consideration of the heritage values of the cottage, which the community has an interest in.

5.7       Generally when Councils dispose of properties there is an obligation to comply with section 40 of the Public Works Act 1981, in this particular scenario there is no obligation.

5.8       Council’s Property Disposal Process states that:

5.8.1   That the Council's policy of publicly tendering properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise be confirmed as applying to all areas of the City with the exception of the area in which the (interim) Central City Board is active in pursuit of Council revitalisation goals.

5.8.2   That it be confirmed that all such sales of Council land must be approved in the normal way by the full Council.

5.9       As a Council business use has not been identified there is no reason for Council to continue to hold this property.

5.9.1   This was established by circulation of a memorandum to all internal business units, as well as to the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board.

 

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 –  Dispose of the property on the open market (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Council sells the property on the open-market.

6.2       This could be done with, or without, a land covenant protecting the heritage values of the cottage.

6.2.1   As the Cottage is listed as a notable building within the Banks Peninsula District Plan it already has a level of protection. It is listed as a significant heritage item in the Replacement District Plan.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The Akaroa community in general appears to have an interest in the heritage value of the cottage itself, rather than its use.  Their view is not specifically known on this option, but this option makes provision for a land covenant to protect the heritage values of the cottage.  The view and preference of a community organisation may be for option 4.

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 - <$20,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source – sales proceeds

Legal Implications

6.10    There is no legal requirement to undertake consultation, but the Council must ‘give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by, or to have an interest in, the matter’. The consideration given to community views is in proportion to how significant the matter is.

6.11    The assessment of this matter as of low significance and the understanding that the community interest/views are directed at the heritage value of the cottage itself, as opposed to a community use, provides appropriate consideration.

6.12    Should there be a significant number of conflicting deputations on the future use of Yew Cottage the Council could opt to undertake consultation on the options identified in this report.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    As noted above, if it becomes apparent the community have differing views on the future use of Yew Cottage the Council could opt to undertake consultation on the options.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Board decision, Council decision.

6.14.1 Select Real Estate Agent

6.14.2 Sell property on open market

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Two-three months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     The heritage values of the Cottage will be protected

·     Council will receive monies from any sale

·     Council will not need to spend unbudgeted funds upgrading the cottage

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The cottage will no longer sit within Council ownership.

7.   Option 2 – Council undertake repairs

Option Description

7.1       Council repairs Yew Cottage and determines a public work for the property.

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 low.

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 Akaroa community in general appears to have an interest in the heritage value of the cottage itself, rather than its use.  Their view is not specifically known on this option, but this option will allow the Council to consider heritage values of the cottage in the repairs that would be required. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Council should not hold property without a public work associated with the property.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – As per 7.5.1

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – unknown, but estimated to exceed $200,000 (verbal update will be provided at meeting)

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $10,000 per annum

7.8       Funding source – unbudgeted

Legal Implications

7.9       If the Council undertakes repairs, there should be a public work for the property.

7.10    Council staff have sought a public work use for the cottage from other units within Council but no use has been ascertained.

7.11    See comments on option 1 regarding consultation.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    Should Council undertake the repairs, any funding would be unbudgeted and the source of funds would need to be established.

7.13    The most appropriate method to fund this would be the Long Term Plan.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - Funding source

7.14.1 Determining an ongoing public work.

7.15    Implementation timeframe – Dependent on Long Term Plan, 12 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   The cottage will be repaired.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is no budget for this work

·   There is no public work for the Cottage once repaired.

8.   Option 3 – Lease the cottage

Option Description

8.1       Council seeks a tenant to lease the property on the basis that the tenant undertake the repairs.

Significance

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

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 Akaroa community in general appears to have an interest in the heritage value of the cottage itself, rather than its use.  Their view is not specifically known on the option of finding a tenant for the cottage, but this option will allow the Council to consider heritage values of the cottage in the repairs that would be required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.5.1   Inconsistency – Council should not hold property without a public work associated with the property.

8.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – As per 8.5.1

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - Minimal

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A

8.8       Funding source - unknown

Legal Implications

8.9       See comments on option 1 regarding consultation.  A tenancy agreement would need to be prepared with recognition the repairs are to completed by the tenant and an appropriate rental to reflect that cost for the tenant.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    It may be difficult to find a tenant who wants to rent the cottage and repair it.  If a tenant was not found staff would need to bring the matter back to Council for a further decision.

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies - Council decision.

8.11.1 Undertake tender

8.11.2 Select tenant

8.12    Implementation timeframe – six months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Cottage will be repaired at no cost to the Council.

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Possible difficulty in finding a tenant.

9.   Option 4 – Gift the Cottage

Option Description

9.1       Council gifts the cottage to a community organisation with a caveat and/or land covenants.

9.2       The Council could consider gifting the Cottage on the provision that it is used for a purpose which would benefit the community.

9.3       There would need to be a caveat that the Cottage would have to be repaired within a certain time frame, or if the cottage was not used for a community purpose the cottage would need to be transferred back to the Council.  A land covenant could also be required to ensure protection of heritage values, as with option 1.

9.4       Council would need to seek a community organisation and subsequently pass a resolution to gift the cottage.

9.5       This would require further investigation to ensure that this was in keeping with the Local Government Act.

9.6       Council staff have been advised by a member of the community that there is a community organisation interested in taking over the cottage, and this organisation has made some progress in regards to arranging an independent entity to lift Yew Cottage to protect it from future floods. No formal proposal has been received, however it is understood that a deputation will be made at the Community Board meeting regarding this proposal.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.8       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

9.9       The Akaroa community in general appear to have an interest in the heritage value of the cottage itself, rather than its use.  Their view is not specifically known on this option, but this option will allow the Council to protect the heritage values of the cottage. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.11    Cost of Implementation – Cost of capital/opportunity cost.

9.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs –N/A

9.13    Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

9.14    See comments on option 1 regarding consultation.  An agreement would need to be prepared to cover the gifting with appropriate conditions.

Risks and Mitigations

9.15    If a suitable community organisation cannot be found, or conditions cannot be agreed, staff would need to bring the matter back to Council for a further decision.

Implementation

9.16    Implementation dependencies - Council decision.

9.16.1 Undertake tender

9.16.2 Select organisation

9.17    Implementation timeframe – 6-12 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Cottage will be repaired at no cost to the Council.

·   Council will not have ongoing operational costs.

9.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council forego the cost of capital, and opportunity costs.

·   The property will come off Councils asset register.

 

 

 

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

Authors

Dan Egerton,           Property Consultant

Judith Cheyne,       Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Angus Smith,           Manager Property Consultancy

Anne Columbus,    General Manager Corporate Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

8.        Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 17 August 2016

Reference:

16/944026

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board held a meeting on 17 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held 17 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board - 17 August 2016

40

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

9.        Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 3 August 2016

Reference:

16/970030

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board held a meeting on 3 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held 3 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board - 3 August 2016

58

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board  – 3 August 2016

 

10.    Chancellor Street Footbridge

Reference:

16/927695

Contact:

Philip Basher

philip.basher@ccc.govt.nz

941 8605

 

 

 

 

1.  Shirley/Papanui Community Board Consideration

 

The Board discussed the report and the information received from Ms Dalziel during her deputation. The Board expressed concern regarding the extent of the proposed parking restrictions.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approves the realignment of Chancellor Street at its intersection with Julius Terrace such that Chancellor Street be closed to vehicular traffic across Dudley Creek, in accordance with Attachment A.

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Chancellor Street and then the southern side of Julius Terrace, commencing at a point 88 metres south of Chancellor Streets intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a southerly and then easterly direction, following the kerb line, into the south side of Julius Terrace for a total distance of 151 metres.  

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Chancellor Street, commencing at its intersection with Julius Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Julius Terrace commencing at its intersection with Chancellor Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres. 

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western and then eastern side of Chancellor Street commencing at a point, on the western side of Chancellor Street, 91 metres north of its intersection Warden Street and following the road edge in a clockwise direction to the eastern side of Chancellor Street to a point 85 metres north of its intersection with Warden Street. 

6.         Approve that resolutions 2 to 4 above take effect on completion of the civil works associated with the implementation of the layout shown on Attachment A. 

 


 

 

3.  Shirley/Papanui Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves that Chancellor Street be closed to vehicular traffic across Dudley Creek.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Chancellor Street Footbridge

63

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Chancellor Street Dudley Creek Crossing Plan Ver. 7

74

b

Dudley Creek - Extent of Works - Hill to Stapletons Ver 7

75

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Chancellor Street Footbridge

Reference:

16/722380

Contact:

Philip Basher

philip.basher@ccc.govt.nz

8605

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to review the results of the stakeholder & community consultation in June and recommend to the Council a scheme for the future status of the Chancellor Street Footbridge at Dudley Creek.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following the briefing to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board on 20 April 2016 on the Chancellor Street Footbridge and the options that are considered.                                                                                                                                                                                                   

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the policy’s criteria to this project.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommend that Council:

1.         Approves the realignment of Chancellor Street at its intersection with Julius Terrace such that Chancellor Street be closed to vehicular traffic across Dudley Creek, in accordance with Attachment A.   

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Chancellor Street and then the southern side of Julius Terrace, commencing at a point 88 metres south of Chancellor Streets intersection with Shirley Road and extending in a southerly and then easterly direction, following the kerbline, into the south side of Julius Terrace for a total distance of 151 metres.  

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Chancellor Street, commencing at its intersection with Julius Terrace and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Julius Terrace commencing at its intersection with Chancellor Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres. 

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western and then eastern side of Chancellor Street commencing at a point, on the western side of Chancellor Street, 91 metres north of its intersection Warden Street and following the road edge in a clockwise direction to the eastern side of Chancellor Street to a point 85 metres north of its intersection with Warden Street. 

6.         Approve that resolutions 2 to 4 above take effect on completion of the civil works associated with the implementation of the layout shown on Attachment A. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.4 Implement the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work programme

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Designated a footpath

·     Option 2 – Shared Path

·     Option 3 – Pedestrian Mall

·     Option 4 – Road Stopping

4.3       Option 1 – Designate a footpath - Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     A simple process that maintains the entire area as road reserve, albeit partly as footpath

·     A straightforward process to replace the footpath designation with an alternative should that be needed in the future

·     Maintains the existing status quo, i.e. the footbridge crossing Dudley Creek

·     Favoured by the majority of respondents to the consultation in May.

·     Allows the connection of the footpath along Dudley Creek from Hills Road shops to Stapletons Road

·     The division of the carriageway does not represent a significant impact on traffic flows in this area.

·     Less expensive option than to replace the complete road bridge demolished in 2014.

·     Avoids the constriction of high water flows at the site that previously occurred because of the former road bridge’s culvert that was too small.

·     Allows improved landscaping along the banks of Dudley Creek.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Splits Chancellor Street into two sections for vehicular traffic

·     No replacement road bridge

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Dudley Creek and Flockton Basin floods that occurred in March and April 2014 led to the establishment of the Mayoral Flood Taskforce to review options and solutions to prevent further serious flooding events. As part of the programme a review of the water course known as Dudley Creek was conducted to determine where the water flows are constricted and/or blocked culverts worsening the flooding events, and to consider the likely mitigation measures.

5.2       The situation in the Dudley Creek area was exacerbated by the Canterbury Earthquakes, which led to land settlement, lateral spreading, liquefaction and siltation of the creek and its tributaries. This has increased the flood risk to many houses in the area and the Council prioritised the investigation of the damage, options for remedial works and timeframes for their delivery.

5.3       There have been several reports to the Council and updates for the Community Boards in respect of progress on the Mayoral Flood Taskforce programme’s progress. These have include recommendations for Dudley Creek to mitigate the flooding issues.

5.4       The Dudley Creek options of flood remediation were reviewed by the Council at the meeting on 13 August 2015. This had followed a stakeholder and community consultation in late 2014 the result of which were considered by the Council at the 11 December 2014 meeting. Three submitters commented on the possibility of retaining the pedestrian footbridge on Chancellor Street that had been installed in October 2014. One submitter was in support of replacing it with a road bridge and the others support the footbridge. The report concluded that further engineering assessment was required to be followed by another consultation on this issue.

5.5       At the Council meeting on 13 August 2015 a report outlining three options for Dudley Creek were reviewed. The preferred option C was approved by the Council to proceed to construction.

 

Chancellor Street

5.6       As part of the interim remedial works the Chancellor Street road bridge at Dudley Creek was removed in September 2014 as a temporary road stopping. This structure was replaced by a footbridge in October 2014.

5.7       As outlined above (section 5.4) staff conducted a stakeholder and community consultation on Option 1 (designate a footpath) in June 2016, which had followed a briefing with the Shirley/Papanui Community Board on 20 April. An overview of the consultation’s results is provided below.

5.8       As the likely cost to replace the road bridge is between $1.5m and $2m staff are seeking to keep the footbridge in place and enhance the area with landscaping and extending the footpath along Dudley Creek. This will be achieved by determining that part of the road reserve of Chancellor Street crossing Dudley Creek (marked in blue in Attachment A) will be designated as footpath (Option 1) using section 319(1)(f) of the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA74) .

5.9       In addition there are proposed changes to the car parks adjacent to the play centre and dashed yellow lines to be installed on Chancellor Street and Julius Terrace in main keeping the cul-de-sac turning circles clear of parked vehicles and providing car parks; see Attachments A & B.


 

6.   Option 1 – Designate a footpath (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Determine that part of Chancellor Street where it crosses Dudley Creek as a footpath under the Council’s powers as the road controlling authority in section 319(1)(f) of the LGA74 (Attachment A, blue shading).

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:

·        Briefing for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board 20 April 2016

·        Stakeholder and community consultation June 2016

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.4       Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd (MKT) submitted preliminary feedback on the overall proposal for Dudley Creek and they raised a number of concerns (August 2015). These had be set out in the options report that was attached to the consultation document that took place in late 2014. Guidance has been taken from their submission and their reference to manawhenua values as given in the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan 2013. The definition to determine the scoring of the environmental criteria was defined as “the degree of change and the extent of change between the options.” Therefore, the determination is whether there is a change and the extent of the change between the options. It does not determine the degree of change to which the options address Iwi values and concerns. With this in mind, the preferred and chosen Option C was considered to provide a positive degree of change compared to the other choices presented to the Council on 13 August 2015. The Chancellor Street footbridge is part of the Option C approved by the Council last year.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The wider Christchurch community are not specifically affected by this option due to the footbridge only affecting one street within the suburb of Shirley. Additionally the footbridge has been in this location since October 2014. Consultation with local community was carried out between 2nd and 17th June 2016.

6.6       116 consultation documents were hand delivered to nearby residents and businesses. Another 20 were posted to absentee owners and 120 to stakeholders. In total 256 consultation documents were provided.

6.7       29 Responses were received by 21 June. Of those, 29 responses, 21 (72%) indicated they support the proposal. 6 (21%) respondents did not support the proposal whilst 2 (7%) did not indicate a preference either way. A couple of recurring themes were raised by submitters and the top ones along with the number of repetitions have been included in the table below.

Respondents Comments

Repetitions

Support the plan to leave bridge as it is, love it, great, like it

17

Chancellor Street is quieter with less traffic / beneficial for street

5

Do not reinstate the vehicle bridge / culvert

3

Don’t block off chancellor street / disappointed with this

3

Question intent of s319(f) LGA 1974 and suspect it should have been s319(h) for road stopping which would require specific consultation

2

Opposed to the no stopping / no parking lines

2

Put back the culvert and re-open street please

2

Additional parking needed for play centre

2

 

6.8       Based on feedback received only minor changes have been made to the plan. The length of yellow no stopping lines has been reduced outside 62 Chancellor Street. The proposed landscaping vegetation on Chancellor Street adjacent to the playcentre has also been reduced. This was in response to concerns about visibility, to maximise parking and to improved vehicular access to the playcentre.

6.9       Two late responses have arrived in July which unfortunately missed compilation for the report. One was in support whilst the other did not support this project.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies specifically the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work programme.

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – excluding the footbridge (already in place) $200,000 for the landscaping and road changes

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no more than $1000 per year mainly roading but also parks and reserves

6.13    Funding source -  Land Drainage Budget

Legal Implications

6.14    Section 319(1)(f) LGA74 provides for the Council to determine what part of a road shall be carriageway and what will be footpath or cycleway only. This requires a resolution from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board in accordance with the roading delegations.

6.15    We have had legal advice from the Council’s solicitors that stopping vehicular access does not deny the right of the public to pass and repass on the legal road, it simply prevents the right to do so using vehicles.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    There is minimal risk in approving this designation of part of Chancellor Street at footpath, and it will help to clarify the existing works and future environmental measures.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - bad weather & contractor availability

6.18    Implementation timeframe – approximately 12 weeks

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   A simple process that maintains the entire area as road reserve, albeit partly as a footpath

·   Straightforward process to replace the footpath designation with an alternative should it be needed in the future.

·   Maintains the existing status quo, i.e. the footbridge crossing Dudley Creek

·   Favoured by the majority of respondents to the consultation in May.

·   Allows the connection of the footpath along Dudley Creek from Hills Road shops to Stapletons Road

·   The division of the carriageway does not represent a significant impact on traffic flows in this area and has been generally welcomed by local residents.

·   Less expensive option than to replace the complete road bridge demolished in 2014.

·   Maintains the existing access arrangements for the neighbouring homes.

·   Avoids the constriction of high water flows at the site that previously occurred because of the former road bridge’s culvert that too small.

·   Allows improved landscaping along the banks of Dudley Creek.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Splits Chancellor Street into two sections for vehicular traffic

·   No replacement road bridge

7.   Option 2 – Shared Path

Option Description

7.1       Using the Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 (Clause 14B) the section of Chancellor Street where it crosses Dudley Creek could be resolved as a Shared Path for use by pedestrians and cyclists. This requires the Council to make the resolution and the Community Board can only recommend this option.

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 described above in section 6.2.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. See section 6.4 for a more complete statement.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option was not consulted on as it would require more staff and elected member input with no significant change to community outcome from the option consulted on. No feedback suggested this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies specifically the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work programme.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – approximately $205,000 (excluding the footbridge)

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – maximum of $1000 per year

7.8       Funding source – Land Drainage Budget

Legal Implications

7.9       The Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 was recently amended (Clause 14B) to allow the designation of footpaths as Shared Paths. These paths allow use by specific road (cyclists & pedestrians), with nominated days and hours of operation. The shared path may also determine how it is used by the public including interaction between pedestrians and other road users, e.g. determining how the pedestrian, and cycling areas are defined.

7.10    The Council has designated shared paths in the CBD, e.g. along Riccarton Avenue and Durham Street as part of the central City rebuild and encourage cycling and walking in the central City.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is minimal risk in approving this designation of part of Chancellor Street as a Shared Path, and it will help to clarify the existing works and future environmental measures.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - bad weather and contractor availability

7.13    Implementation timeframe – six to nine months as a new consultation would be required and then a further report to the Community Board and Council

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would ensure that this section of Chancellor Street is closed to vehicular traffic.

·   Maintains the existing status quo, i.e. the footbridge crossing Dudley Creek

·   Allows the connection of the footpath along Dudley Creek from Hills Road shops to Stapletons Road

·   The division of the carriageway does not represent a significant impact on traffic flows in this area and has been generally welcomed by local residents.

·   Less expensive option than replacing the complete road bridge demolished in 2014.

·   Avoids the constriction of high water flows at the site that previously occurred because of the former road bridge’s culvert.

·   Allows improved landscaping along the banks of Dudley Creek.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Requires a Council resolution to create and to disestablish.

·   Does not replace the road bridge.

·   Continues the division of Chancellor Street for road vehicles

·   Requires the prescribed signage to warn all road users of the shared path ahead

·   This option requires another round of stakeholder and community consultation, specifically on the option before a decision could be taken.

8.   Option 3 – Pedestrian Mall

Option Description

8.1       By using section 336 of the LGA74 the Council can create a pedestrian mall that can restrict this part of Chancellor Street to pedestrians only. This designation can be restricted to certain days and hours or operate for 365 days and for 24 hours. There are several pedestrian malls in Christchurch; such as Cashel Mall and part of Chester Street West adjacent to the Cathedral Grammar School.

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 given in section 6.2 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. See section 6.4 for a more complete statement.

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       This option was not consulted on as it would require more staff input and have a higher significance to Maori with no significant change to community outcome from the preferred option consulted on. No feedback suggested this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies specifically the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work programme.

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – approximately $220,000

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – a maximum of $1000 per year

8.8       Funding source – Land Drainage Budget

Legal Implications

8.9       The Pedestrian Mall designation requires a Council resolution which is delegated to the local community boards. Nevertheless, it is felt that the pedestrian mall option is not suitable to the Chancellor Street site as it not our intention to create a broader area for pedestrians only.

8.10    A pedestrian mall proposal would require further consultation before a resolution it could be reviewed by the Community Board.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    There is minimal risk in approving the designation of part of Chancellor Street as a Pedestrian Mall, and it will help to clarify the existing works and future environmental measures. However, a pedestrian mall would not necessarily match the requirements of this site. It is also a relatively lengthy and costly process to create and then remove.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - bad weather and contractor availability

8.13    Implementation timeframe - six to nine months as a new consultation would be required and then a further report to the Community Board and Council

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would ensure that this section of Chancellor Street is closed to vehicular traffic.

·   Maintains the existing status quo, i.e. the footbridge crossing Dudley Creek

·   Allows the connection of the footpath along Dudley Creek from Hills Road shops to Stapletons Road

·   The division of the carriageway does not represent a significant impact on traffic flows in this area and has been generally welcomed by local residents.

·   Less expensive option than replacing the complete road bridge demolished in 2014.

·   Avoids the constriction of high water flows at the site that previously occurred because of the former road bridge’s culvert that was too small.

·   Allows improved landscaping along the banks of Dudley Creek.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Requires a Community Board resolution to create and to disestablish.

·   This option requires another round of stakeholder and community consultation, specifically on the option before a decision could be taken.

·   Does not replace the road bridge.

·   Is not a suitable option in this case.

·   Continues the division of Chancellor Street for road vehicles

·   Requires the prescribed signage to warn all road users of the pedestrian mall ahead

9.   Option 4 – Road Stopping

Option Description

9.1       By utilising the processes in section 342 and schedule 10 of the LGA74 and the Council’s Road Stopping Policy 2009 the Council could road stop the section of Chancellor Street where it crosses Dudley Creek (Attachment A). This would mean that this part of Chancellor Street would no longer be road land and would probably become part of the reserve along the course of Dudley Creek.

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 given in section 6.2 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. See section 6.4 for a more complete statement.

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       This option was not consulted on as it would require more staff input and have a higher significance to Maori with no significant change to community outcome from the preferred option consulted on. Two responses received did suggest this option. However, this option is not the preferred option. If the need arose in future to reinstate vehicle crossing the no stopping would require the recreation of the road reserve and the Council’s acceptance of the “new” road in accordance with the Public Works Act 1981 process.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies specifically the Mayoral Flood Taskforce work programme. It would remove the road reserve at the Dudley Creek crossing and therefore any future road bridge if it is needed in the future.

Financial Implications

9.6       Cost of Implementation – Road Stopping would cost between $7,000 and $25,000 depending on whether any objections had to be heard by the Environment Court. This could increase the total cost to $230,000.

9.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – maximum of $1000 per year

9.8       Funding source – Land Drainage Budget

Legal Implications

9.9       A road stopping requires a Council resolution which is delegated to the local community boards. In addition as part of the LGA74 process it is necessary to conduct a consultation exercise with all likely effected parties. Any objections raised and not resolved by the Council would need to be heard by the Environment Court which can overturn the Council’s decision if the objection is upheld.

9.10    A further stakeholder and community consultation is needed on this specific option before a resolution could be adopted by the Community Board.

9.11    This option would be contrary to the Council Road Stopping Policy which states that road stopping is not appropriate when “the road is required, or may be required at any time in the future, for any roading or associated purpose (including any possible future need for movement corridors, for example walkways, cycleways or other uses additional to normal vehicular needs)”. Staff believe that it would serve the community better to maintain the current road reserve status of Chancellor Street to meet future transport network needs.

Risks and Mitigations

9.12    There is a relatively high risk in seeking to road stop of part of Chancellor Street although it will help to clarify the existing works and future environmental measures. A road stopping will not necessarily match the requirements of this site and if approved could be seen as permanent change to the road network. It is a lengthy and costly process to undertake and there is no guarantee it would be successful.

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies  - dependent on the type and volume of objections to a road stop

9.14    Implementation timeframe – Road Stopping is a lengthy process and could take between one and two years to complete

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Would ensure that this section of Chancellor Street is closed to vehicular traffic.

·   Maintains the existing status quo, i.e. the footbridge crossing Dudley Creek

·   Allows the connection of the footpath along Dudley Creek from Hills Road shops to Stapletons Road

·   The division of the carriageway does not represent a significant impact on traffic flows in this area and has been generally welcomed by local residents.

·   Likely to be less expensive option than replacing the complete road bridge demolished in 2014.

·   Avoids the constriction of high water flows at the site that previously occurred because of the former road bridge’s culvert.

·   Allows improved landscaping along the banks of Dudley Creek.

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Requires a separate Council (Community Board) resolution to approve the road stopping.

·   This option requires another round of stakeholder and community consultation, specifically as part of the road stopping process laid down in the LGA74 and the Council’s Road Stopping Policy before a decision could be taken.

·   This road stopping option would be contrary to the Council’s Road Stopping Policy as it may be possible in the future that the road bridge requires reinstatement.

·   If any objections were upheld by the Environment Court the road stopping could not proceed.

·   If road stopping were approved the road reserve status be replaced as a freehold plot.

·   Road stopping is a lengthy and expensive process.

·   Does not replace the road bridge.

·   Is not a suitable option in this case.

·   Continues the division of Chancellor Street for road vehicles

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Chancellor Street Dudley Creek Crossing Plan Ver. 7

 

b 

Dudley Creek - Extent of Works - Hill to Stapletons Ver 7

 

 

 

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

Philip Basher,          Transport Policy Engineer

Ryan Rolston,          Senior Traffic Engineer

Steffan Thomas,    Operations Manager

Approved By

Peter Langbein,      Finance Business Partner

Chris Gregory,         Head of Transport

David Adamson,     General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board  – 3 August 2016

 

11.    Proposed Speed Limit Changes Shirley/Papanui Ward

Reference:

16/927721

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

 

 

1.  Shirley/Papanui Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.k and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Blakes Road from Radcliffe Road northerly, generally, along Blakes Road to Belfast Road. 

b.         Approves that the speed limit of Blakes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 110 metres north of its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction to the end of the road.

c.         Approves that the speed limit of Blakes Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 110 metres. 

d.         Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Belfast Road commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point measured 180 metres west of Blakes Road.

e.         Approves that the speed limit of Belfast Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road. 

f.          Approves that the speed limit of Belfast Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road. 

g.         Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Greywacke Road from Johns Road to end. 

h.         Approves that the speed limit of Greywacke Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

i.          Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Highsted Road south, generally, along Highsted Road from Styx Mill Road to a point measured 50 metres north from Claridges Road. 

j.          Approves that the speed limit of Highstead Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 320 metres south of Styx Mill Road. 

k.         Approves that the speed limit of Highstead Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Styx Mill Road and extending in a southerly direction to a point 320 metres south of Styx Mill Road. 

2.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.k come into force on 31 October 2016. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Shirley/Papanui Ward

79

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Blakes Road and Belfast Road Proposed Speed Limit Consultation Plan

86

b

Highsted Road and Greywacke Road Speed Limit Consultation Plan

87

c

Blakes Road Recommended 50/80 Change Point

88

d

Highsted Road Recommended Speed Limit Change Point Plan

89

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Shirley/Papanui Ward

Reference:

16/692695

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Shirley/Papanui Community Board’s recommendation that Council approves speed limit changes proposed in this report.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a review of speed limits across the city and subsequent consultation. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the scale of the impacts and the number of people affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommend that Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.k and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Blakes Road from Radcliffe Road northerly, generally, along Blakes Road to Belfast Road. 

b.         Approve that the speed limit of Blakes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 110 metres north of its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction to the end of the road. 

c.         Approve that the speed limit of Blakes Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Radcliffe Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 110 metres. 

d.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Belfast Road commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point measured 180 metres west of Blakes Road. 

e.         Approve that the speed limit of Belfast Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Main North Road and extending in an easterly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road. 

f.          Approve that the speed limit of Belfast Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Marshland Road and extending in a westerly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Blakes Road. 

g.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Greywacke Road from Johns Road to end. 

h.         Approve that the speed limit of Greywacke Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

i.          Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Highsted Road south, generally, along Highsted Road from Styx Mill Road to a point measured 50 metres north from Claridges Road. 

j.          Approve that the speed limit of Highstead Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 320 metres south of Styx Mill Road. 

k.         Approve that the speed limit of Highstead Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Styx Mill Road and extending in a southerly direction to a point 320 metres south of Styx Mill Road. 

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.k come into force on 31 October 2016. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Set Speed Limits in General Accordance with the Consultation Proposal

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the roads

·     Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased travel time

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Staff have reviewed speed limits on a number of roads city wide.  The last review of speed limits occurred in 2014.  There has been substantial residential and commercial green-field growth since the previous review, which in turn has altered travel patterns. 

5.2       A total of 31 proposed speed limit changes were consulted on from 31 May until 21 June 2016.  The proposals included four changes to streets within the Shirley / Papanui Ward, as listed below:

·   Belfast Road

·   Blakes Road

·   Greywacke Road

·   Highsted Road

5.3       The consultation plans for the proposed speed limit changes relevant to the Shirley / Papanui ward are included as Attachments A and B.  As a result of the consultation feedback, there are some changes to the locations of the proposed speed limit changes, as outlined in Section 6.8 to 6.15 of the report. 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Set Speed Limits in General Accordance with the Consultation Proposal

Option Description

6.1          The preferred option involves lowering the speed limit of:

·Belfast Road

·                Blakes Road

·                Greywacke Road

·                Highsted Road

6.2   The previous freezing works site that fronts both Belfast Road and Blakes Road has been redeveloped as an industrial subdivision.  This has included streetscape changes to urbanise both frontages.  The site presently represents the urban / rural boundary.  It is proposed to lower the speed limit to 50km/h to reflect the changes to the streetscape.  However, it is noted that although the subdivision works (including streetscape) have occurred that enable development, the site is presently vacant. 

6.3Works have commenced on the Spring Grove residential subdivision at the southern end of Blakes Road.  

6.4Greywacke Road was historically a largely unformed cul de sac that dissipated into private access to several industrial properties from Johns Road.  The road is listed in the Register of Speed Limits as a 100km/h road.  Greywacke Road has recently been extended by approximately 1km to connect with Sawyers Arms Road.  The new road section is within an industrial development area.  Ideally this new road, being within the urban traffic area would have defaulted to 50km/h.  However, as the extended road takes the name of Greywacke Road, the speed limit as sent in the Register of Speed Limits is applicable.  It is proposed to remove the 100km/h reference from the Register of Speed Limits. 

6.5Recent residential development has occurred on Highsted Road that has moved the urban / rural boundary to the north.  It is proposed to relocate the 50 / 80km/h change point to reflect the change in environment. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       Council staff recently consulted on 31 proposed speed limit changes.  A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 1500 property and business owners, residents and other key stakeholders.  It was also emailed to residents’ groups and stakeholders, and posted on the Have Your Say website. 

6.9       In total, 224 individuals or organisations sent in feedback on the 31 proposals.

6.10    Eleven submitters, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, support all proposed changes. Eight additional comments on changes in the Shirley / Papanui Ward were received. 

6.11    One comment, specific to Belfast Road, supports relocating the 50 / 80km/h change point. 

6.12    A submission, referring to Blakes Road, seeks that the 50km/h zone is extended to the south of Thompsons Road, which brings the Spring Grove subdivision into the 50km/h section.  This involves extending the speed limit change point south by a further 300 metres.  It is recommended that this be incorporated into the decision.  The recommended change point is shown on Attachment C

6.13    There were no submissions specific to Greywacke Road. 

6.14    Six submissions were received on Highsted Road.  Of these, five support the proposed relocation of the 50 / 80 km/h change point, and one is opposed.  The support generally reflects the fact that there is new residential development that fronts onto the street.  The submission in opposition was opposed to speed reductions in general. 

6.15    Three of the five submissions supporting relocating the speed limit change point on Highsted Road requested that the change point is located closer to Styx Mill Road than proposed.  This would be consistent with planned development (currently underway) and is supported.  The recommended change point is shown on Attachment D

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.17    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $2,000 to revise speed limit signage

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

6.19    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.20    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and subsequent amendments. 

6.21    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.22    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.24    None identified

Implementation

6.25    Implementation dependencies – Council approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.27    The advantages of this option include:

·   Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the roads

·   Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

6.28    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased travel time

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing speed limits.  

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the feedback received.   

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - n/a

7.8       Funding source - n/a

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.17 to 6.20

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    n/a

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies – n/a.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – n/a.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address speed related safety issues that would result if drivers are to continue to use the roads at the current speed limits 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Blakes Road and Belfast Road Proposed Speed Limit Consultation Plan

 

b 

Highsted Road and Greywacke Road Speed Limit Consultation Plan

 

c 

Blakes Road Recommended 50/80 Change Point

 

d 

Highsted Road Recommended Speed Limit Change Point Plan

 

 

 

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

Ryan Rolston,          Senior Traffic Engineer

Jennie Hamilton,    Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Chris Gregory,         Head of Transport

David Adamson,     General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board  – 31 August 2016

 

17.    Proposed Shirley Community Centre Rebuild Request for Delegated Authority

Reference:

16/994219

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

 

1.   Consideration

 

 

At their meeting of 31 August 2016 the Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered a process for the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre.

The Council has allocated funding of $2.57 million to cover the capital costs of the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre. This project is in Tranche 1 of the Community Facilities Rebuild Programme.

Information from the Project Manager indicates a timeframe of around 18-24 months from approval of the concept design through to the opening of the new facility as well as the time needed for the consultation process.

Initial consultation with the Shirley community by the Shirley/Papanui Community Development Advisers regarding the rebuild of a facility in Shirley has already started and will continue until 17 November to be followed by a community conversation. This information will assist with determining a draft concept plan for the Community Centre.

The Board wishes to proceed with this project and suggests that a process similar to that put in place by the Council for the rebuild of the St Albans Community Centre be followed.

Accordingly the Board requests that delegated authority for decision-making around the Shirley Community Centre project be given by the Council, including the delegation of authority to make decisions from the recommendations of the Working Party and from staff for the siting, design and rebuild process and future management of the facility.

The Board agreed at their meeting that:

·    Terms of Reference, similar to those developed for the St Albans Community Centre rebuild process will be developed for this project and will be considered for approval by the Papanui/Innes Community Board at the start of the next electoral term.

·    The formation of any Working Party and the arrangements for any first meeting will also be delayed until the start of the next electoral term.

·    The decision as to the site of the new Shirley Community Centre will also be made by the Papanui/Innes Community Board in the next electoral term.

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

2.   Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

 

3.   Shirley/Papanui Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

That  the Council:

1.         Delegates the necessary authority to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board (to be the Papanui/Innes Community Board in the next term) for decisions regarding the rebuild and future management of the Shirley Community Centre at either 10 Shirley Road or any other selected site.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

13.    Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 3 August 2016

Reference:

16/927600

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board held a meeting on 3 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held

3 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 3 August 2016

94

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Pascoe - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

14.    Shirley/Papanui Community Board Minutes - 17 August 2016

Reference:

16/1022874

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board held a meeting on 17 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held

17 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 17 August 2016

110

 

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Pascoe - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board  – 2 August 2016

 

15.    Lease Surrender - Spreydon Bowling Club and Granting of New Lease to Kereru Sports Club

Reference:

16/926142

Contact:

Faye Collins

faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

 

 

1.  Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

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

Part C

The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve a new ground lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated over an area of approximately 3338m2 on Spreydon Domain being part of Reserve 3824 a recreation reserve identified in Certificate of Title CT657/52, for a period of 33 years broken into three terms of 11 years at an annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy, subject to:

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

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to administer and conclude the terms and conditions of the lease including, but not limited to:

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

2.2       Finalising the Deed of Lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated;

2.3       Approving terms and conditions of any hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings subject to the lease area.

 

2.  Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the surrender of lease dated 12 July 1982 (having a final expiry of 11 July 2024) to Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated over that part of the land located at Spreydon Domain on Domain Terrace identified as Reserve 3824 District of Canterbury.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Lease Surrender - Spreydon Bowling Club and Granting of New Lease to Kereru Sports Club

119

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Lease Plan

128

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Lease Surrender - Spreydon Bowling Club and Granting of New Lease to Kereru Sports Club

Reference:

16/499230

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

Lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to recommend Council approve the surrender of the ground lease to Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated (the “Bowling Club”) and grant a new lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club (“Kereru”) over that parcel of land currently occupied on Spreydon Domain as shown in Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the both the Bowling Club and Kereru.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by officers completing an assessment of significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Recommend that Council approve the surrender of lease dated 12 July 1982 having a final expiry of 11 July 2024 to Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated over that part of the land located at Spreydon Domain on Domain Terrace identified as Reserve 3824 District of Canterbury; and

   Subject to number 1 above:

2.         Approve a new ground lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated over an area of approximately 3338m2 on Spreydon Domain being part of Reserve 3824 a recreation reserve identified in Certificate of Title CT657/52, for a period of 33 years broken into three terms of 11 years at an annual rental set in accordance with the Council's Sports Lease Charges Policy, subject to:

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

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to administer and conclude the terms and conditions of the lease including, but not limited to:

a.         Finalising the Deed of Surrender to Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated;

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

c.         Finalising the Deed of Lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated;

d.         Approving terms and conditions of any hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings subject to the lease area.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Surrender lease to Spreydon Bowling Club and grant new lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club  (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Assign and vary lease between Spreydon Bowling Club and Kereru Sports and Cultural Club

·     Option 3 – Status Quo

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Maximising the recreational potential of the park

·     Utilising existing buildings for use by more than one sporting code or recreational activity

·     Concluding the lease obligations of the Bowling Club.

·     Having a more financial and stronger organisation take responsibility for building ownership and maintenance.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An area of Spreydon Domain being exclusively used by a sports and recreation club.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated

5.1       Spreydon Bowling Club have had a decline in membership numbers for the last few years and can no longer maintain the buildings on their own; they currently have 18 - 20 members.

5.2       In 1986, 2006 and 2010 the Bowling Club surrendered parts of their leased areas due to declining club numbers and increased maintenance costs.

5.3       The Bowling Club has indicated that they had previously explored the sale of their clubrooms in 2014 to the Christchurch United Football Club (the “Football Club”) but this did not eventuate.  The Bowling Club initiated discussions to sell the clubrooms to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated following the fire at Coronation Hall.

History Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Inc

5.4       Kereru have been at Spreydon Domain for over 15 years.  They had a lease with the Council at Coronation Hall which was extensively damaged by fire in 2015. 

5.5       Kereru have been in discussions with the Bowling Club regarding the purchase of the bowling club’s building being clubrooms.  The parties have negotiated a sale and purchase of the clubrooms subject to Kereru securing the lease of the land.

5.6       Currently their membership is made up of the following sporting codes:

·   Netball - 7 senior teams with Canterbury Reps

·   Softball - 11 junior teams and 7 senior teams including Canterbury and New Zealand Reps

·   Rugby League - 3 junior teams and 1 senior team

·   Cultural Group - 25 members

·   Lawn Bowls - currently 18 - 20 members from the current Bowling Club, with members of other sporting codes indicating a desire to join bowling.

5.7       Kereru have been working closely with Bowling Club to ensure that their existing members will be welcome to play bowls without the stress of owning and maintaining a building and administrative duties in operating as an incorporated association.  Some of the Kereru members are now interested in learning lawn bowls which will increase the number of lawn bowls players utilising the greens.

5.8       The Football Club indicated an interest in purchasing the Bowling Club clubrooms however they were not in a position to go through with the transaction.  The Football Club currently use the clubrooms for storage and hire the facilities for awards nights and other functions.  Should a lease be granted to Kereru, provisions will be made in the lease documentation to permit Kereru to hire the clubrooms and provide storage to the football club and other sporting and recreational groups.

5.9       These three main users of Spreydon Domain are working well together to facilitate shared use of the building club facilities.

 

The Land

5.10    The leased area is approximately 3338m2 at Spreydon Domain being comprised of Reserve 3824 Canterbury District having a total area of 7.0820ha, being a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

Delegations

5.11    The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board does not have the delegated authority to accept a surrender of a lease however they may recommend to the Council that the lease be surrendered.

5.12    The Council has delegated to Community Boards the authority to grant new leases on reserves pursuant to section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977. The proposed lease will be granted under the provisions of section 54(1)(b)(c) of that Act.

Parks Management Plan

5.13    The current Recreation Three Zone Reserves Management Plan approved by the Christchurch City Council in February 1987, provides for the activities of the:

·    Section 13 (d) 1. Leases and Licences - The whole or part of a reserve for outdoor recreation where the development and maintenance costs for the area are met by the organisation.

Public Advertising

5.14    There is a requirement in the Park Management Plan to publicly advertise the granting of a new lease in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 as the Plan requires that all new lease and licence applications shall be advertised and all objections and submissions given full consideration by the approved management plan for the reserve.

5.15    The Council has publicly advertised the intention to grant a lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club and the author will update the Community Board after submissions close on 28th July 2016 on feedback received at the time this report is presented.

Minister of Conservation Consent

5.16    The prior consent of the Minister of Conservation shall not be required before the administering body grants a lease or licence under subsection 54(1), where:

a)    The administering body of a recreation reserve is a territorial authority or a regional council; and

b)    The reserve is vested in that territorial authority or regional council; and

c)    A management plan for that reserve has been approved in accordance with section 41; and

d)    The lease or licence is in conformity with and contemplated by that management plan.

6.   Option 1 - Surrender lease to Spreydon Bowling Club and grant new lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Recommend Council approve the surrender of the Lease to Spreydon Bowling Club Incorporated and that the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board grant a new lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       Members of both Kereru and the Bowling Club are specifically affected by this option due to both clubs having a continued need to provide facilities from which to participate in their recreational activities.  Their views support this request.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - There are no costs to the Council other than staff time which is budgeted for.  An annual rental is being charged in accordance with Council's charging policy for sports club ground leases.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

6.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

6.9       The Council’s legal services team will prepare the necessary surrender and lease documents in accordance with the provisions set out in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977.  Costs for preparation of the documents will be passed on to the applicable clubs.

6.10    The lease will include provisions permitting the Lessee to hire out the facilities to other sporting and recreational user groups maximising use of the clubrooms.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    The risk in granting a lease for a period of up to 33 years is that Kereru’s requirements may change; for example membership numbers grow and more space is required or alternatively they may cease to operate. To mitigate the risk, the lease will consist of three terms of 11 years which provides an opportunity for Kereru to determine any changes in the level of service they provide to their members. The lease documentation will protect the Council's interests on the reserve and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - Approval by the Council to surrender the Bowling Club lease; granting of new lease to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club Incorporated.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - Completion of lease documentation after resolution by Council and Community Board.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maximising the recreational potential of the park

·   Utilising existing buildings for use by more than one sporting code or recreational activity

·   Concluding the lease obligations of the Bowling Club.

·   Having a more financially viable and stronger organisation take responsibility for building ownership and maintenance.

·   A longer lease term which provides surety to Kereru.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An area of recreation reserve occupied exclusively by a sports club.

7.   Option 2 - Assign and vary lease between Spreydon Bowling Club and Kereru Sports and Cultural Club

Option Description

7.1       Assign the current lease from Spreydon Bowling Club to Kereru Sport and Cultural Club with a final expiry of 11 July 2024.  This option also requires a variation of the lease purpose to permit the activities undertaken by Kereru as the existing lease is for the purpose of playing bowls.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       Members from both clubs are specifically affected by this option due to continued need to provide facilities from which to participate in the recreational activities.  Their views would support this option although an assignment of the lease with eight years remaining in the final term would not provide security of tenure to Kereru when considering the capital investment required to purchase the Bowling Club buildings.

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 - There are no costs to the Council other than staff time which is budgeted for.  An annual rental will be charged in accordance with Council's charging policy for sports club ground leases. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - not applicable

7.8       Funding source - not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       The Council’s legal services team will prepare the necessary assignment and variation of lease documents in accordance with the provisions set out in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977.  Costs for preparation of the documents will be passed on to the applicable clubs.

7.10    The lease will require a variation as the current permitted use is for bowling.  It will also include a variation permitting the Lessee to hire out the facilities to other sporting and recreational user groups maximising use of the clubrooms.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    A risk in assigning the lease is Kereru may not feel eight years is a sufficient period to realise the capital outlay required to acquire the improvements of the bowling club.  To mitigate this risk a longer lease term is recommended.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Resolution

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Completion of lease documentation after resolution by Community Board.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Maximising the recreational potential of the park

·   Utilising existing buildings for use by more than one sporting code or recreational activity

·   Concluding the lease obligations of the Bowling Club.

·   Having a more financial and stronger organisation take responsibility for building ownership and maintenance.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Remaining lease term does not provide surety to Kereru Sports and Cultural Club to realise capital outlay.

·   Administratively multiple lease documents would be required to form the new Deed for Kereru:

·     Deed of Lease dated 12th July 1982

·     Deed of Surrender dated 24th December 1986

·     Deed of Surrender dated 27th December 2006

·     Deed of Renewal dated 29th July 2010

·     Deed of Assignment and Deed of Variation (2016)

 

 

 

 

8.   Option 3 - Status Quo

Option Description

8.1       Decline request to assign or surrender lease.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       Members from both clubs are specifically affected by this option due to continued need to provide facilities from which to participate in the recreational activities.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.5.1   Inconsistency - does not support Council's Long Term Plan (2015-2025)

·     Reason for inconsistency - The Long Term Plan provides a level of service to support community based organisations and networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport.

8.5.2   Amendment necessary - changes to the Long Term Plan that would not support providing spaces for residents to participate in outdoor recreation.

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation - not quantified, however costs would include staff time and resources to facilitate ongoing liaison with the Bowling Club until lease expiry.

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no cost to Council.

8.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.9       The current lease provides the guidelines to deal with the termination of the lease.  In this instance, if the Lessee (Bowling Club) ceased to operate, the Lessor (Council) is required to ensure that any other incoming Lessee will pay to the outgoing Lessee the value as determined by the Lessor of all buildings and other improvements belonging to the Lessee.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    If the Community Board does not grant a new lease to Kereru then the Council may be faced with facilitating the sale and purchase of the buildings and improvements prior to the Bowling Club lease expiry.  To mitigate this risk, Option 1 or 2 in this report are recommended.

8.11    Another risk to Council is that if the Bowling Club winds up and the buildings are abandoned Council could be faced with the cost for removal of the improvements if an incoming tenant was not found that could purchase the improvements.  To mitigate this risk the Council would require the Bowling Club to remove the improvements.  Approving Option 1 or 2 in this report would mitigate that risk.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies - dependent on actions of Bowling Club.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – dependent on actions of Bowling Club.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantage to the Council.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Kereru Sports and Recreational Club remain displaced as their previous home was damaged by fire. 

·   Unnecessary financial hardship to Spreydon Bowling Club if required to continue with their lease until expiry.

·   Financial costs to Spreydon Bowling Club to remove their buildings and improvements.

·   Lack of facilities for sporting and recreational activities which may then lead to further applications from individual clubs to build club rooms and facilities on Spreydon Domain for the same purposes.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Lease Plan

 

 

 

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

Lisa Barwood,          Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden,          Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith,           Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge, Head of Parks

Mary Richardson,  General Manager Customer & Community

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

16.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016

Reference:

16/926110

Contact:

Faye Collins

faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 2 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meeting held 2 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - 2 August 2016

130

 

 

Signatories

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

17.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 19 August 2016

Reference:

16/1003549

Contact:

Faye Collins

faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 19 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meeting held 19 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - 19 August 2016

138

 

 

Signatories

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board  – 15 August 2016

 

18.    Berm Trees in Subdivisons

Reference:

16/963320

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

9418258

 

 

 

1.   Consideration

 

At the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting on 15 August 2016, the Board heard two separate deputations on street trees in subdivisions which are causing damage to residents’ properties and Council infrastructure.  The Board also received information on this matter from the Council Area Arborist. 

 

Large tree roots are following water sources along drains, damaging plumbing systems and causing repetitive maintenance and repairs to footpaths and berms, where the tree roots have lifted and cracked the surface.

 

The Board agreed to request that staff look at updating the Infrastructure Design Standards (IDS) register to avoid unsuitable tree planting reoccurring, and that an aligned approach between The Tree Policy, IDS Register and the Resource Management Act will ensure species recommendations and conditions for future tree planting and soft landscaping in subdivision development is appropriate. 

 

 

 

2.   Decisions Under Delegation

 

After hearing the deputations and receiving advice from staff the Board resolved to:

 

1.       Request that problematic trees in the Westhaven subdivision be assessed for suitable replacement trees where necessary due to reported ongoing and increasing damage to infrastructure and private property.

2.       Request that staff look at updating the acceptable trees on the Infrastructure Design Standard (IDS) register. 

 

3.   Recommendation to Council

 

 

That the Council considers an integrated approach to tree planting between The Tree Policy, Infrastructure Design Standards (IDS) register and the Resource Management Act (RMA) in relation to subdivision development, and that staff include advice from the City Arborist in the planning of the integrated approach process. 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board  – 15 August 2016

 

19.    Proposed Speed Limit Change Dunlops Road

Reference:

16/970823

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves, pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, that speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.b and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.      Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Dunlops Road from Lower Styx Road easterly, generally, along Dunlops Road to end. 

b.     Approves that the speed limit of Dunlops Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour.

2.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.b come into force on 31 October 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Speed Limit Change Dunlops Road

146

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Dunlops Road Speed Limit Change Consultation Plan

151

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Proposed Speed Limit Change Dunlops Road

Reference:

16/692592

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board’s recommendation to Council that the speed limit of Dunlops Road be set at 50km/h.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a review of speed limits across the city and subsequent consultation. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the scale of the impacts and the number of people affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board recommend that Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.b and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Dunlops Road from Lower Styx Road easterly, generally, along Dunlops Road to end. 

b.         Approve that the speed limit of Dunlops Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour.

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.b come into force on 31 October 2016. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Change the speed limits of Dunlops Road to 50km/h

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Sets the speed limit of Dunlops Road at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the road

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Staff have reviewed speed limits on a number of roads city wide.  The last review of speed limits occurred in 2014.  There has been substantial residential and commercial green-field growth since the previous review, which in turn has altered travel patterns. 

5.2       A total of 31 proposed speed limit changes were consulted on from 31 May until 21 June 2016.  This included one change to a road within the Burwood / Pegasus Ward, Dunlops Road. The consultation plan for the proposed change to Dunlops Road is included as Attachment A.    

Historically Dunlops Road was a rural cul-de-sac, which had the same 80km/h speed limit as Lower Styx Road.  Dunlops Road was recently absorbed into the northern end of the Prestons Subdivision.  The road has been fully reconstructed as a local residential street.  The appropriate speed limit for the road is now 50km/h. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Change the speed limits of Dunlops  Road to 50km/h (preferred)

Option Description

The preferred option involves lowering the speed limit of Dunlops Road from 80km/h to 50km/h.    Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Council staff recently consulted on 31 proposed speed limit changes.  A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 1500 property and business owners, residents and other key stakeholders.  It was also emailed to residents’ groups and stakeholders, and posted on the Have Your Say website.

6.5       In total, 224 individuals or organisations sent in feedback on the 31 proposals.

6.6       Eleven submitters, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, support all changes as proposed. 

6.7       Three submissions are specific to Dunlops Road.  All three indicate support for the reduced speed limit.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – Approximately $600 to revise speed limit signage

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

6.11    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.12    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and subsequent amendments. 

6.13    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.14    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    None identified

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies – Council approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Sets the speed limit of Dunlops Road at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the road

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing 80km/h speed limit of Dunlops Road. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for speed limit changes. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – n/a

7.8       Funding source – n/a

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.12 to 6.15

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    n/a

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies – n/a

7.12    Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address speed related safety issues that would result if drivers were to use Dunlops Road at the current speed limit. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Dunlops Road Speed Limit Change Consultation Plan

 

 

 

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

Ryan Rolston - Senior Traffic Engineer

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

20.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 1 August 2016

Reference:

16/956494

Contact:

Barbara Strang

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held a meeting on 1 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held

1 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 1 August 2016

154

 

 

Signatories

Author

Barbara Strang - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

21.    Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 1 August 2016

Reference:

16/898929

Contact:

Edwina Cordwell

edwina.cordwell@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-6728

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held a meeting on 1 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board meeting held 1 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board - 1 August 2016

172

 

 

Signatories

Author

Edwina Cordwell - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

22.    Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 15 August 2016

Reference:

16/959093

Contact:

Edwina Cordwell

Edwina.cordwell@ccc.govt.nz

941 6728

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held a meeting on 15 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board meeting held 15 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board - 15 August 2016

178

 

 

Signatories

Author

Edwina Cordwell - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board  – 29 August 2016

 

23.    Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton/Waimairi Ward Area

Reference:

16/1018693

Contact:

Edwina Cordwell

edwina.cordwell@ccc.govt.nz

941 6728

 

 

 

 

1.  Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Resolves that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.v and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Avonhead Road from Grays Road southeasterly, generally to a point 100 metres from Russley Road. 

b.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Avonhead Road from a point 100 metres northwesterly of Russley Road to a point 270 metres measured southeasterly, general along Avonhead Road from Russley Road. 

c.         Approve that the speed limit of Avonhead Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Russley Road and extending in a northwesterly direction to the end of the road.

d.         Approve that the speed limit of Avonhead Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Russley Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 270 metres. 

e.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Grays Road from Ryans Road northeasterly, generally, to Avonhead Road. 

f.          Approve that the speed limit of Grays Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Ryans Road and extending in a northeasterly direction to the end of the road. 

g.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Jessons Road from Pound Road easterly, generally, to end. 

h.         Approve that the speed limit of Jessons Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour. 

i.          Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of McArthurs Road from McLeans Island Road northwesterly, general to end. 

j.          Approve that the speed limit of McArthurs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour. 

k.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of McLeans Island Road from a point measured 140 metres north of Export Drive to Chattertons Road. 

l.          Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of McLeans Island Road from Johns Road to a point measured 140 metres north of Export Avenue. 

m.       Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Johns Road (SH1) and extending in a northwesterly to a point measured 205 metres north of Export Avenue. 

n.         Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 205 metres northwest of its intersection with Export Avenue and extending in a westerly direction, generally, to a point 600 metres northwest of its intersection with Pound Road. 

o.         Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 100 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 600 metres northwest of its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a westerly direction, generally, to Chattertons Road. 

p.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Pound Road from McLeans Island Road to a point measured 100 metres northeast of West Coast Road.

q.         Approve that the speed limit of Pound Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with McLeans Island Road and extending in a southerly direction, generally, to a point 100 metres north of its intersection with West Coast Road (SH75). 

r.          Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Ryans Road from Guys Road southeasterly, generally, to a point 120 metres from Russley Road.

s.         Approve that the speed limit of Ryans Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Russley Road (SH1) and extending to its intersection with Pound Road. 

t.          Approve that the speed limit of Ryans Road be set at 100 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending to its intersection with Guys Road. 

u.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit of Stanleys Road from Harewood Road southerly, generally, along Stanleys Road to Wairakei Road. 

v.         Approve that the speed limit of Stanleys Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton/Waimairi Ward Area

185

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton / Waimairi Ward (western) Consultation Plan

194

b

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton / Waimairi Ward (northern) Consultation Plan

195

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton/Waimairi Ward Area

Reference:

16/690423

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board’s recommendation that the Council approves speed limit changes proposed in this report.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a review of speed limits across the city and subsequent consultation. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the scale of the impacts and the number of people affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Resolves that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.v and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Avonhead Road from Grays Road southeasterly, generally to a point 100 metres from Russley Road. 

b.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Avonhead Road from a point 100 metres northwesterly of Russley Road to a point 270 metres measured southeasterly, general along Avonhead Road from Russley Road. 

c.         Approve that the speed limit of Avonhead Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Russley Road and extending in a northwesterly direction to the end of the road.

d.         Approve that the speed limit of Avonhead Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Russley Road and extending in a southeasterly direction for a distance of 270 metres. 

e.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Grays Road from Ryans Road northeasterly, generally, to Avonhead Road. 

f.          Approve that the speed limit of Grays Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Ryans Road and extending in a northeasterly direction to the end of the road. 

g.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Jessons Road from Pound Road easterly, generally, to end. 

h.         Approve that the speed limit of Jessons Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour. 

i.          Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of McArthurs Road from McLeans Island Road northwesterly, general to end. 

j.          Approve that the speed limit of McArthurs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour. 

k.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of McLeans Island Road from a point measured 140 metres north of Export Drive to Chattertons Road. 

l.          Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of McLeans Island Road from Johns Road to a point measured 140 metres north of Export Avenue. 

m.       Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Johns Road (SH1) and extending in a northwesterly to a point measured 205 metres north of Export Avenue. 

n.         Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 205 metres northwest of its intersection with Export Avenue and extending in a westerly direction, generally, to a point 600 metres northwest of its intersection with Pound Road. 

o.         Approve that the speed limit of McLeans Island Road be set at 100 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 600 metres northwest of its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a westerly direction, generally, to Chattertons Road. 

p.         Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit of Pound Road from McLeans Island Road to a point measured 100 metres northeast of West Coast Road.

q.         Approve that the speed limit of Pound Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with McLeans Island Road and extending in a southerly direction, generally, to a point 100 metres north of its intersection with West Coast Road (SH75). 

r.          Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit of Ryans Road from Guys Road southeasterly, generally, to a point 120 metres from Russley Road.

s.         Approve that the speed limit of Ryans Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Russley Road (SH1) and extending to its intersection with Pound Road. 

t.          Approve that the speed limit of Ryans Road be set at 100 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending to its intersection with Guys Road. 

u.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit of Stanleys Road from Harewood Road southerly, generally, along Stanleys Road to Wairakei Road. 

v.         Approve that the speed limit of Stanleys Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Wairakei Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Harewood Road. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Set speed limits in accordance with the consultation proposal

·     Option 2 – Retain existing speed limits

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports road safety by reducing the speed limit on high risk roads

·     Supported by the community

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Longer travel times

 

5.   Context/Background

Review Overview

5.1       Staff have reviewed speed limits on a number of roads city wide.  The last review of speed limits occurred in 2014.  There has been substantial residential and commercial green-field growth since the previous review, which in turn has altered travel patterns. 

5.2       A total of 31 proposed speed limit changes were consulted on from 31 May until 21 June 2016.  This included changes to eight streets within the Fendalton/Waimairi Ward, as listed below:

·   Avonhead Road, proposed 50km/h west of Russley Road

·   Grays Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour

·   Jessons Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour

·   McArthurs Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour

·   McLeans Island Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour (rural) and proposed 50 kilometres per hour (commercial)

·   Pound Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour

·   Ryans Road, proposed 80 kilometres per hour from Russley Road to Pound Road

·   Stanleys Road, proposed 50 kilometres per hour

5.3       The consultation plans for the proposed speed limit changes relevant to the Fendalton/Waimairi ward are included as Attachments A and B

Avonhead Road

5.4       Much of Avonhead Road west of Russley Road was recently stopped.  A short section remains between Russley Road and Ron Guthrey Road and has a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit.  The current speed limit is a remnant from the previous rural nature of the area.  The remaining section of Avonhead Road is within a business park and should have the speed limit lowered to 50 kilometres per hour. 

5.5       It is noted that the Avonhead Road / Ron Guthrey Road intersection is a priority controlled cross‑road presently with a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit in an urban development area.  This is a significant safety concern. 

Grays Road

5.6       Grays Road provides access to the Airport Business Park.  There is commercial development at the northern end of Grays Road associated with the airport.  The northern end of Grays Road was recently stopped, removing the traffic function of the road.  The proposed speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour is consistent with proposed speed limit changes for this general area.

Jessons Road

5.7       Jessons Road is a 700 metres long rural cul-de-sac.  It is desirable that the speed of the cul-de-sac be consistent with the connecting Road (McLeans Island Road) to avoid the need to place speed limit signage on Jessons Road indicating speeds that are largely unachievable due to the length of the road.  It is proposed that the speed limit of Jessons Road and McLeans Island Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour.

McArthurs Road

5.8       McArthurs Road is a short cul-de-sac off McLeans Island Road that provides access to a number of properties.  It is desirable for the legal speed limit to match that of McLeans Island Road to avoid the need to place speed limit signage on the road.  It is proposed to change the speed limit of McLeans Island Road to 80 kilometres per hour.

McLeans Island Road (Export Drive to Johns Road) (Commercial Area)

5.9       There is recent commercial development at the eastern end of McLeans Island Road.  This section of road has high parking demands.  Export Avenue and Logistics Drive are 50 kilometres per hour industrial streets accessed from this section of McLeans Island Road.  The environment of McLeans Island Road in this area is compatible with the 50 kilometres per hour side roads.  Hence, it is proposed to change the speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour to create a cohesive speed limit within the industrial area.

5.10    It is noted that this proposal is also consistent with the access restrictions at the McLeans Island Road / Johns Road intersection and associated detouring of traffic along Logistics Drive.  Further, the Logistics Drive / McLeans Island Road intersection has been constructed as urban intersection, and does not have the markings or geometry that would be typically provided on an 80 kilometres per hour intersection.

5.11    The location of the 50/80 kilometres per hour change point has been selected to include the future Broughs Road connection with McLeans Island Road within the 50 kilometres per hour speed limit area.

Pound Road and McLeans Island Road (Export Drive to Pound Road) (Rural Area)

5.12    There is an issue with speed limit consistency on roads at the back of the airport.  Drivers travelling along Pound Road and McLeans Island Road from SH1 Hornby to SH1 Harewood encounter six changes in speed limit, all with a similar road environment.

5.13    It is considered that the nature of the road, in particular the geometric standard, volume and composition of heavy traffic and land use visible from the road creates a situation that supports a speed limit below 100 kilometres per hour.  This is also supported by 2014 count information.  North of Ryans Road the average vehicle speed was recorded at 88 kilometres per hour.  North of Yaldhurst Road observed average speeds were a lower 73 kilometres per hour.  These speeds support an 80 kilometres per hour speed limit.

5.14    The Pound Road / McLeans Island Road route is classified as Medium / High risk.  The last five years there have been four fatalities and nine serious injury crashes on the route.  The last fatality occurred in April 2016.

5.15    It is considered that setting the speed limit of Pound Road and McLeans Island Road at 80 kilometres per hour gives the best outcome in terms of compliance with the Rule, safety and consistency.

5.16    It is noted that the recommendations in this report align with the recommendations to the Riccarton / Wigram Community Board for changes to the speed limit of Pound Road south of Yaldhurst Road.

Ryans Road (Russley Road to Pound Road)

5.17    Changing the speed limit to 80 kilometres per hour as proposed seeks consistency with proposed speed limits in the general area.   Due to the short 2.2 kilometre length of this road section, and noting much of the traffic turns down Grays Road half way along this length, the proposed 80 kilometres per hour is more in keeping with achievable speeds on the road.

Stanleys Road

5.18    Stanleys Road is a narrow tree lined country lane that serves a number of industrial properties at is southern end, with the remainder of the street being residential.  Although the street intersects with both Harewood Road and Sawyers Arms Road, it has a distinct access function.  The current speed limit is 70 kilometres per hour.

5.19    Due to the narrow carriageway and side friction created by roadside hazards, such as trees, power poles and parked cars, it is considered that the safe operating speed is significantly less than the posted speed limit.

5.20    As a stand-alone road, the 950m length of Stanleys Road does not meet the minimum length for a 70 kilometres per hour speed limit.  Because the road has no 'through' function, there is no network efficiency benefit of having a higher posted speed limit on the street, as would typically be gained on traditional 70 kilometres per hour on township arterial routes, or urban periphery connector roads.  It is therefore recommended that speed limit is reduced to 50 kilometres per hour.

6.   Option 1 – Set Speed Limits in Accordance with the Consultation Plan (preferred)

Option Description

The preferred option involves changing speed limits in accordance with the consultation proposal, as described above and indicated on Attachment A and B. Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

General

6.4       A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 1,500 property and business owners, residents and other key stakeholders.  It was also emailed to residents’ groups and stakeholders, and posted on the Have Your Say website.

6.5       In total, 224 individuals or organisations sent in feedback on the 31 proposals.

6.6       Eleven submitters, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, support all changes as proposed.  Forty eight additional comments were received on proposed changes within the Fendalton/ Waimairi ward.

Avonhead Road

6.7       Three responses specific to Avonhead Road all support the proposed 50 kilometres per hour speed limit.

Grays Road

6.8       Two responses relating to Grays Road both support the proposed 80 kilometres per hour speed limit.

Jessons Road

6.9       Two responses referring to Jessons Road both support the proposed 80 kilometres per hour speed limit.

McArthurs Road

6.10    Two responses specific to McArthurs Road support the proposed 80 kilometres per hour speed limit.

Pound Road / McLeans Island Road Proposed 80 kilometres per hour section

6.11    There were 37 responses to the proposed 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road and McLeans Island Road route.  Of these 32 (86 percent) are in support.  It is noted that one submission was a petition with 19 signatures to change the speed limit. If each signature were included as a submission in favour of the proposal, then support increases to 91 percent.

6.12    Comments in support of the proposal include:

·   The risk of fatalities has increased greatly with the upsurge on traffic activity

·   The terrain is not suited for the speed of 100km/h

·   Near hit / near miss incidents are witnessed frequently on a daily basis

·   There are near miss incidents daily, multiple unrecorded accidents, accidents involving police, ambulance and fire services, including a fatality in 2015 on the corner of Pound Road and McLeans Island Road

·   A reduction in the speed limit to 80 kilometres per hour is essential for the safety of road users and I would endorse and even lower limit of 70 kilometres per hour

·   My company has been through six windscreens in two years as a result of stones form the quarry dump trucks and we feel that slowing the traffic in general, with enforcement, will result in improved safety and reduced damage.

·   A reduction to 80 kilometres per hour is essential to ensure the safety of all road users of McLeans Island Road. 

6.13    Comments in opposition to the proposal include:

·   Does not meet the requirements as set out in the LTSA SLNZ guidelines (ie Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003)

·   Does not have a history of serious crashes 

McLeans Island Road Proposed 50 kilometres per hour section

6.14    One response specific to the proposed 50 kilometres per hour on McLeans Island Road, between Johns Road and Export Avenue, supports the proposal.

Ryans Road

6.15    One response relating to the proposed 80 kilometres per hour on Ryans Road was in support of the proposal.

Stanleys Road

6.16    No specific response, apart from the New Zealand Transport Agency, was received for Stanleys Road .

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.18    Cost of Implementation - Approximately $4,000 to revise speed limit signage

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

6.20    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.21    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and subsequent amendments.

6.22    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.23    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.25    None identified

Implementation

6.26    Implementation dependencies - Council approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.28    The advantages of this option include:

·   Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the roads

·   Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

6.29    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Longer travel times

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing speed limits.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the community feedback received through consultation.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is consistent with Council Plans and Policies.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.8 to 6.21

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Does not address crash risk, on Pound Road and McLeans Island Road in particular.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies – not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains existing travel times

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address speed related safety issues that would result if drivers are to continue to use streets at the current speed limits 

·   Is not supported by the community feedback received

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton / Waimairi Ward (western) Consultation Plan

 

b 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton / Waimairi Ward (northern) Consultation Plan

 

 

 

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

Ryan Rolston - Senior Traffic Engineer

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

24.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016

Reference:

16/903893

Contact:

Barbara Strang

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held a meeting on 2 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held

2 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 2 August 2016

198

 

 

Signatories

Author

Barbara Strang - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board  – 27 July 2016

 

25.    Halswell Skate and Recreation Park - Site Selection

Reference:

16/925457

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

 

1.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Consideration

 

At an extraordinary meeting on 27 July 2016, the Board considered a report from staff seeking a decision on the siting of a skate and recreation facility in Halswell.

 

The Board also had regard to the 13 deputations it received on the matter. The Board decisions on this project are detailed in clauses 2 and 3 below.

 

2.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Decision Under Delegation

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/000018

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

 

1.    Approve the development of a skate and recreation park in Halswell Domain.

 

2.    That the location be the site adjoining the playground on Halswell Domain as outlined in the staff report.

 

Note: Funding for this project is to be from the Council’s budgeted allocation in its Long Term Plan 2015/25.

 

3.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Recommendation to the Council

 

Part A

 

3.    That the Council proceed with a skate park at Knights Stream potentially funded from Development Contributions.

 

Explanatory Note

The Board, having taken account of the detailed site assessments undertaken by staff in their report to the Board and the resulting deputations made to it, concluded that a further skate park in the new Knights Stream subdivision in south west Halswell was worthy of the Council’s consideration and support. The funding of this facility through Development Contributions was viewed by the Board as being appropriate. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell Skate and Recreation Park - Site Selection - Staff report

212

 

 


Council

08 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board  – 2 August 2016

 

26.    Notice of Motion - Riccarton Service Centre

Reference:

16/941755

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

 

1.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Decision Under Delegation

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00001

The Board considered a Notice of Motion regarding an interim Service Centre for Central Riccarton.

Part B

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decided to:

1.    Accept for consideration, the Notice of Motion regarding the Riccarton Service Centre.

 

2.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recommends to the Council:

         

1.         That the Council notes its decision of 11 February 2016, ‘that the Service Centre remain in the Riccarton Commercial Area, either in the new Community Centre or another location’.

2.         That upon the sale of the current Clarence Street site, the Council provides an interim co-located and/or temporary building to serve as the Riccarton Service Centre in the central Riccarton area until the opening of the new Riccarton Community Centre in mid 2018.

3.         That if a suitable interim service centre site is not found within two months, that staff report back to the Board.

4.         That the sale of the Clarence Street site proceed as soon as practicable.

Explanatory Note

The purpose of the above proposals are to (a) have the Council again note its decision of February 2016 for a Service Centre to remain in the Riccarton Commercial area and the reasons for remaining in central Riccarton as set out in the Community Board Report on the Notice of Motion – Riccarton Community Centre, to the Council on 11 February 2016 (refer attachments), and (b) to request that an interim Service Centre be provided in the central Riccarton area during the build phase of the new Community Centre, and (c) for the sale of the Clarence Street site to proceed without delay.

At its meeting on 14 June 2016, the Board approved the Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre including space for Council services and a staffing presence.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - Notice of Motion Report - Riccarton Community Centre - 2 February 2016

265

b

Service Centres - Transactions

267

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 


 


Council

08 September 2016

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board  – 16 August 2016

 

27.    Riccarton/Wigram - Recently Vested Reserves Through Subdivisions - Namings and Classifications

Reference:

16/975994

Contact:

Russel Wedge

russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8270

 

 

 

 

1.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Consideration

         The Board considered a report seeking recommendations to be made to the Council for proposed reserve names and classifications in the wider Halswell area.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to recommend to the Council to:

1.         Approve the proposed reserve names as specified in Attachment A.

2.         Approve the proposed classification of the reserves in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 section 16(2A) as specified in Attachment A.

 

3.  Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the proposed reserve names as specified in Attachment A of the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves the proposed classification of the reserves in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 section 16(2A) as specified in Attachment A of the meeting agenda.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Riccarton/Wigram - Recently Vested Reserves Through Subdivisions - Names and Classifications

270

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications

276

b

Location Plan Proposed Reserve Names

279

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram - Recently Vested Reserves Through Subdivisions - Names and Classifications

Reference:

16/554067

Contact:

Russel Wedge

russel.wedge@ccc.govt.nz

941 8270

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to:

a)         Recommend to the Council to approve the proposed reserve names as listed in Attachment A, and

b)        Recommend to the Council to approve the proposed classification of the reserves as per the Reserves Act 1977, section 16(2A) specified in Attachment A.

1.2       The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities, outlines the procedure for the naming of reserves, which is for the proposed reserve names to be referred to the Community Board in the first instance and then to the Council for adoption.

1.3       Under section 16(2A), Reserves Act 1977, any land vested with the Council can declare that land to be a reserve providing it has been given a classification through a Council resolution.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report has been generated by Council staff to ensure the naming and classification of reserves follows the Council Policy Register.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by Russel Wedge, the author, based on the suggested thresholds for assessing criteria.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide to recommend to the Council to:

1.         Approve the proposed reserve names as specified in Attachment A.

2.         Approve the proposed classification of the reserves in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 section 16(2A) as specified in Attachment A.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Neighbourhood Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.0.1 Neighbourhood Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean,  tidy, safe and functional

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications are Recommended to Council (preferred)

·     Option 2 - The Reserves Are Not Named or Classified

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve

·     The reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park identifier and added to a maintenance contract

·     The classification of the reserve confirms the vested purpose and use of the reserve in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There are no disadvantages.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       A number of new reserves have been vested in the Christchurch City Council as part of subdivision developments in the Riccarton/Wigram Ward. The Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities, states that all reserves vested in or under the control of the Council shall be given an appropriate name. New reserves are required to be allocated a name before they can be entered into the Council's maintenance contracts.

5.2       Under the Reserves Act 1977, Section 16 (2A) any land that has been vested with the Council can declare that land to be a reserve providing it has been given a classification through Council resolution. The classification of the reserve will provide the basis as to how the reserve should be managed and administered, for example, a recreation reserve compared to a drainage reserve (refer Attachment A)


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications are Recommended to Council (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed names are for reserves that have been vested with the Council at the time of the development of the subdivision. The classification of the reserve through a Council resolution complies with the Reserves Act for providing the basis of how the reserve is managed and administered.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       Mana Whenua were consulted on the proposed reserves names and the recommended names have been incorporated in Attachment A.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The reserve land has been vested in the Council at the time of the development of the subdivision. The naming of the reserves usually commences before the land titles have been issued both for the proposed reserve and any adjoining prospective residential land owners, which has meant it has not been possible to consult with adjoining residents, neighbourhood or residential groups.

6.5       The location of the reserve and often the draft landscape plans with the subdivision's proposed reserve name (originated by the developer) are available to prospective property buyers.

6.6       The naming of reserves in subdivisions follows a similar process to the Community Board consideration of appropriating names for public roads within a subdivision.

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - There are no direct financial implications associated with the allocation of reserve names or the classification of a reserve, which are administrative processes undertaken as an operational expense.

6.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - There is a requirement for reserves to be named before they can be entered into SAP and allocated to a maintenance contract.

6.10    Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.11    There are no negative legal implications to the naming and classification of the Council land as a reserve. The land has already been vested under the Reserves Act 1977 as a reserve. The classification of the land endorses the purpose the land was acquired in accordance with section 16(2A) Reserves Act 1977. The naming of the reserve complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There are minimal, if any risks as the name of the reserves complies with the Council Policy Register: Naming of Reserves and Facilities.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - no known dependencies.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - approximately one month after the names have been approved by Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The reserve has an official name that can be used in locating and promoting the reserve.

·   The reserve can be entered into SAP enabling it to be given a park identifier and added to a maintenance contract.

·   The classification of the reserve confirms the vested purpose and use of the reserve in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages.

7.   Option 2 - The Reserves Are Not Named or Classified

Option Description

7.1       The Community Board may determine they will not name the parks or approve the classification of the reserves.

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 appropriate.

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 are specifically affected by this option as there would be no maintenance of the parks carried out under the negotiated contract rates. Maintenance of the parks would be at a higher financial cost to the community and ratepayers than if the park was part of a maintenance contract. The parks would not be able to be entered in the Council SAP system and could therefore not be given a park identifier or entered into the parks maintenance contract.

7.5       The community views are for the parks to be maintained and at a reasonable financial rate.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - the Council's Level of Service is to maintain Council parks to the specified standard.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - the parks would not be able to be entered into SAP and could not therefore be added to the parks maintenance contract.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary - to name the parks to enable them to be entered into SAP, given a park identifier and added to the parks maintenance contract.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - If the reserves cannot be maintained under the parks maintenance contact the Council is charged a much higher rate for them to be maintained as a one-off activity.

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - the Council is charged a much higher rate to maintain reserves if they are not included in the Council's negotiated parks maintenance contracts.

7.9       Funding source – parks operational budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    The Council is obliged to maintain the Council reserves in accordance with the Levels of Service, notified to the public through the Long Term Plan (LTP) process as required by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    To not name the reserves is high risk as the reserves cannot be maintained under the parks maintenance contracts and if they are not maintained to the specified Levels of Service, there could be a conflict with the Council’s LTP and the LGA. Or the parks are maintained to the specified Levels of Service but the Council is charged a higher rate to maintain the parks as they are not part of the negotiated parks maintenance contract.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - no known dependences.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable if reserve names not approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages for not naming the reserves.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The reserves cannot be entered into SAP, provided with a park identifier.

·   The reserves cannot be added to the parks maintenance contract.

·   The maintenance of the reserves would be charged at a higher rate.

·   If the reserves are not maintained, they would not comply with the Levels of Service, LTP or LGA.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Reserve Names and Classifications

 

b 

Location Plan Proposed Reserve Names

 

 

 

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

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board  – 16 August 2016

 

28.    Riccarton/Wigram Ward - Proposed Speed Limit Changes

Reference:

16/976018

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

 

 

1.  Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Consideration

 

The Board considered a report (refer Attachment 1) seeking a recommendation to the Council to approve the proposed speed limit changes on roads in the Riccarton/Wigram ward.

In its deliberations, the Board also had regard to the deputations made separately by the Halswell Residents’ Association, Greg Olive and Kay Stieller.

 

The staff member in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and responded to questions from members.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.1 to 1.32 and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

1.1       Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 336 metres. 

1.2       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Awatea Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 500 metres.

1.3       Approves that the speed limit on Carrs Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.4       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at a point measured 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Wigram Road. 

1.5       Revokes the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in a north westerly direction to a point measured 100 metres south east of Wigram Road. 

1.6       Approves that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in an north westerly direction to a point 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76). 

1.7       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Marshs Road, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of State Highway 1 and extending in a south easterly direction to Quaifes Road. 

1.8       Approves that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of Main South Road (SH1) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres north of Whincops Road.

1.9       Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Murphys Road. 

1.10    Approves that the speed limit of Murphys Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.11    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Owaka Road from Awatea Road southerly generally along Owaka Road to end. 

1.12    Approves that the speed limit on Owaka Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour. 

1.13    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road measured 600 metres south west of Roberts Road to Waterloo Road.

1.14    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road, from a point measured 350 metres south of West Coast Road to a point 600 metres south of Roberts Road. 

1.15    Approves that the speed limit on Pound Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 350 metres southwest of West Coast Road (SH75). 

1.16    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Quaifes Road.

1.17    Approves that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Whincops Road.

1.18    Approves that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Whincops Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres. 

1.19    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Roberts Road from a point measured 250 metres north westerly, generally from Matangi Street to Pound Road.

1.20    Approves that the speed limit on Roberts Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 250 metres northwest of its intersection with Matangi Street. 

1.21    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road from a point measured 200 metres westerly, generally from Brixton Street to Pound Road.

1.22    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road on the city side of the centreline from Pound Road, westerly generally to Bicknor Street.

1.23    Approves that the speed limit on Waterloo Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 60 metres east of Bicknor Street and extending in an easterly direction to a point 200 metres west of Brixton Street. 

1.24    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Whincops Road commencing at its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending initially in a southerly direction then in a south westerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.25    Approves that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road. 

1.26    Approves that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.27    Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wigram Road from its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending generally in a north easterly direction to a point 64 metres south west of its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.28    Approves that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

1.29    Approves that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at a speed of 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.30    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road from a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road.

1.31    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road (the portion that is the continuation of the original alignment) and extending in a south westerly direction to its end. 

1.32    Approves that the speed limit on Wilmers Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road. 

2.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.1 to 1.32 come into force on 31 October 2016. 

 

3.  Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

Helen Broughton moved, seconded by Mike Mora, that the staff report be considered by the Board.

Vicki Buck moved by way of an amendment that the staff recommendations be adopted, subject to the changes marked (bold) in clauses 1.6, 1.8, 1.17 and 1.26, as follows:

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.1 to 1.32 and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

1.1       Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 336 metres. 

1.2       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Awatea Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 500 metres.

1.3       Approves that the speed limit on Carrs Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.4       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at a point measured 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Wigram Road. 

1.5       Revokes the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in a north westerly direction to a point measured 100 metres south east of Wigram Road. 

1.6       Approves that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in an north westerly direction to a point 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76). 

1.7       Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Marshs Road, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of State Highway 1 and extending in a south easterly direction to Quaifes Road. 

1.8       Approves that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of Main South Road (SH1) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres north of Whincops Road.

1.9       Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Murphys Road. 

1.10    Approves that the speed limit of Murphys Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.11    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Owaka Road from Awatea Road southerly generally along Owaka Road to end. 

1.12    Approves that the speed limit on Owaka Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour. 

1.13    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road measured 600 metres south west of Roberts Road to Waterloo Road.

1.14    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road, from a point measured 350 metres south of West Coast Road to a point 600 metres south of Roberts Road. 

1.15    Approves that the speed limit on Pound Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 350 metres southwest of West Coast Road (SH75). 

1.16    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Quaifes Road.

1.17    Approves that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Whincops Road.

1.18    Approves that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Whincops Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres. 

1.19    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Roberts Road from a point measured 250 metres north westerly, generally from Matangi Street to Pound Road.

1.20    Approves that the speed limit on Roberts Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 250 metres northwest of its intersection with Matangi Street. 

1.21    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road from a point measured 200 metres westerly, generally from Brixton Street to Pound Road.

1.22    Revokes the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road on the city side of the centreline from Pound Road, westerly generally to Bicknor Street.

1.23    Approves that the speed limit on Waterloo Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 60 metres east of Bicknor Street and extending in an easterly direction to a point 200 metres west of Brixton Street. 

1.24    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Whincops Road commencing at its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending initially in a southerly direction then in a south westerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.25    Approves that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road. 

1.26    Approves that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.27    Revokes the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wigram Road from its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending generally in a north easterly direction to a point 64 metres south west of its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.28    Approves that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

1.29    Approves that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at a speed of 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.30    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road from a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road.

1.31    Revokes the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road (the portion that is the continuation of the original alignment) and extending in a south westerly direction to its end. 

1.32    Approves that the speed limit on Wilmers Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road. 

2.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.1 to 1.32 come into force on 31 October 2016. 

The amendment was put to the meeting as the substantive motion and declared carried.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Riccarton/Wigram Ward - Proposed Speed Limit Changes

295

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Riccarton Wigram Ward (Western) Consultation Plan

306

b

Proposed Speed Limits Riccarton Wigram Ward (Southern) Consultation Plan

307

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram Ward - Proposed Speed Limit Changes

Reference:

16/698869

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board’s recommendation to the Council that it approve speed limit changes in the Riccarton/Wigram ward proposed in this report. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a review of speed limits across the city and subsequent consultation. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the scale of the impacts and the number of people affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.ff and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

1.1       Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Wigram Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 336 metres. 

1.2       Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Carrs Road from its intersection with Awatea Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 500 metres.

1.3       Approve that the speed limit on Carrs Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.4       Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at a point measured 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Wigram Road. 

1.5       Revoke the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in a north westerly direction to a point measured 100 metres south east of Wigram Road. 

1.6       Approve that the speed limit on Halswell Junction Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Halswell Road (SH75) and extending in an north westerly direction to a point 121 metres south east of its eastern most intersection with the Christchurch Southern Motorway (SH76). 

1.7       Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Marshs Road, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of State Highway 1 and extending in a south easterly direction to Quaifes Road. 

1.8       Approve that the speed limit on Marshs Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 380 metres southeast of Main South Road (SH1) and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 100 metres north of Whincops Road.

1.9       Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Murphys Road. 

1.10    Approve that the speed limit of Murphys Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour. 

1.11    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Owaka Road from Awatea Road southerly generally along Owaka Road to end. 

1.12    Approve that the speed limit on Owaka Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour. 

1.13    Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road measured 600 metres south west of Roberts Road to Waterloo Road.

1.14    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Pound Road, from a point measured 350 metres south of West Coast Road to a point 600 metres south of Roberts Road. 

1.15    Approve that the speed limit on Pound Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Waterloo Road and extending in a north easterly direction to a point 350 metres southwest of West Coast Road (SH75). 

1.16    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Quaifes Road.

1.17    Approve that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Sabys Road and extending in a north westerly direction to a point 100 metres southeast of Whincops Road.

1.18    Approve that the speed limit on Quaifes Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Whincops Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres. 

1.19    Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Roberts Road from a point measured 250 metres north westerly, generally from Matangi Street to Pound Road.

1.20    Approve that the speed limit on Roberts Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Pound Road and extending in a south easterly direction to a point 250 metres northwest of its intersection with Matangi Street. 

1.21    Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road from a point measured 200 metres westerly, generally from Brixton Street to Pound Road.

1.22    Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Waterloo Road on the city side of the centreline from Pound Road, westerly generally to Bicknor Street.

1.23    Approve that the speed limit on Waterloo Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 60 metres east of Bicknor Street and extending in an easterly direction to a point 200 metres west of Brixton Street. 

1.24    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Whincops Road commencing at its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending initially in a southerly direction then in a south westerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.25    Approve that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road. 

1.26    Approve that the speed limit on Whincops Road be set at 80 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 120 metres south of its intersection with Quaifes Road and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Longstaffs Road. 

1.27    Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wigram Road from its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending generally in a north easterly direction to a point 64 metres south west of its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.28    Approve that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 70 metres.

1.29    Approve that the speed limit on Wigram Road be set at a speed of 50 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 70 metres north east of its intersection with Halswell Junction Road and extending in a north easterly direction to its intersection with Dunbars Road. 

1.30    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road from a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road.

1.31    Revoke the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit on Wilmers Road (the portion that is the continuation of the original alignment) and extending in a south westerly direction to its end. 

1.32    Approve that the speed limit on Wilmers Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour commencing at a point 50 metres southwest of Awatea Road and extending in a south westerly direction to a point 50 metres east of its intersection with Springs Road. 

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.ff come into force on 31 October 2016. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Set Speeds in Accordance with the Consultation Proposal

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the road

·     Reduced potential for crashes and the high severity injuries

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Longer travel times

 

5.   Context/Background

Review Overview

5.1       Staff have reviewed speed limits on a number of roads city-wide.  The last review of speed limits occurred in 2014.  There has been substantial residential and commercial greenfield growth since the previous review, which in turn has altered travel patterns. 

5.2       A total of 31 proposed speed limit changes were consulted on from 31 May to 21 June 2016.  These included 12 changes to streets within the Riccarton/Wigram ward, as listed below:

·   Carrs Road, proposed 50 kilometres per hour to both the Wigram Road and Awatea Road sections

·   Halswell Junction Road, extend 60 kilometres per hour section to the Southern Motorway

·   Marshs Road, local 50 kilometres per hour at the Whincops Road intersection

·   Murphys Road, 50 kilometres per hour entire length

·   Owaka Road, 60 kilometres per hour entire length

·   Pound Road, reduce the 100 kilometres per hour section to 80 kilometres per hour

·   Quaifes Road, local 50 kilometres per hour at the Whincops Road intersection

·   Roberts Road, reduce the 100 kilometres per hour section to 80 kilometres per hour

·   Waterloo Road, reduce the 100 kilometres per hour section to 80 kilometres per hour

·   Whincops Road, extend the 50 kilometres per hour limit to the southwest of its intersection with Quaifes Road / Marshs Road

·   Wigram Road, 50 kilometres per hour from Halswell Junction Road to Dunbars Road

·   Wilmers Road, 60 kilometres per hour entire length

5.3       The consultation plans for the proposed speed limit changes relevant to the Riccarton/Wigram ward are included as Attachments 1 and 2

Carrs Road

5.4       Due to being bisected by the Southern Motorway, Carrs Road consists of two culs-de-sac – one accessed from Wigram Road and one accessed from Awatea Road.  The remaining road sections are sufficiently short to create a self-enforcing low speed environment.  There is residential development underway on the Awatea Road section.  Although there is no present development occurring on the Wigram Road section, it is desirable for the speed limit of this section to match the proposed speed limit on Wigram Road of 50 kilometres per hour. This avoids the situation where the cul-de-sac would have signs indicating 80 kilometres per hour, despite this speed not being achievable or appropriate for the road. 

Halswell Junction Road

5.5       To the north west of Halswell, Halswell Junction Road historically formed the rural/urban boundary of the city.   The Longhurst subdivision has now introduced residential development on the south western side of the previously rural section of Halswell Junction Road. 

5.6       In 2015, the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Halswell Junction Road within Halswell, was extended northwest as far as Wigram Road to encompass the section of road that was reconstructed as part of the Longhurst subdivision.  A further section of Halswell Junction Road, north west of Wigram Road, has now been reconstructed as part of the subdivision.  It is proposed to extend the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit to include this section.  It is noted that the subdivision provides direct residential property access to Halswell Junction Road in this area. 

5.7       Under the Setting of Speed Limits Rule (the Rule), the calculated speed of Halswell Junction Road from Murphys Road to the Southern Motorway remains at 80 kilometres per hour, including allowance for planned but incomplete development.  The calculated speed is largely determined from the number of properties directly fronting the street.  The calculation is not particularly well suited to urban streets where the development does not generally front directly onto the road.  This situation has also arisen on Awatea Road, Wigram Road (Awatea Road to Hayton Road) and Prestons Road.  The Council has consistently set the speed limits of these roads at 60 kilometres per hour, and this appears to be an appropriate compromise between the street environment and drivers’ expectations. 

Marshs Road / Whincops Road / Quaifes Road

5.8       The Longhurst subdivision is developed as far at the Marshs/Whincops/ Quaifes intersection.  The current 50/80 kilometres per hour change point on Whincops Road is situated immediately north east of Marshs Road/Quaifes Road. 

5.9       Associated with the subdivision, priority at the Marshs/Whincops/Quaifes intersection was reversed, such that Marshs Road and Quaifes Road have priority.  Both Whincops Road approaches are stop controlled.  As a result, it is desirable to relocate the 50/80 kilometres per hour change point to the southern Whincops Road approach for the following reasons:

·   Allows signage to be placed at a suitable distance from the intersection to avoid clutter and potential driver confusion

·   Supports drivers reducing speed early on the approach to the Stop controlled intersection

·   Supports safety at the priority controlled cross road intersection

Murphys Road

5.10    There is new residential development along the north west side of Murphys Road.  The road was reconstructed as part of the subdivision to provide an urban street environment, with kerb and footpath on the north west side of the street.  In 2015, the speed limit of the street was reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 70 kilometres per hour, in accordance with the Rule. 

5.11    It is considered that the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit does not accurately reflect the true residential nature of the street, and hence it is proposed to reduce the speed limit to 50 kilometres per hour.  It is noted that planning has been initiated for a private school on the south east side of Murphys Road at the Quaifes Road/Murphys Road intersection.  

Owaka Road

5.12    Owaka Road is a 500 metre long semi-rural cul-de-sac accessed from Awatea Road.  It is proposed to change the speed limit to be consistent with the 60 kilometres per hour speed limit on Awatea Road.  The minimum length for an 80 kilometres per hour road under the Rule is 800 metres, which is not currently complied with. 

Pound Road

5.13    There is an issue with speed limit consistency on roads at the back of the airport.  Drivers travelling along Pound Road and McLeans Island Road from State Highway 1 Hornby to State Highway 1 Harewood, encounter six changes in speed limits, all with a similar road environment. There is ongoing industrial development in Templeton (Waterloo Business Park) and at the airport, for which Pound Road is a key access route.   

5.14    Much of Pound Road between Hornby and Yaldhurst currently has a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.  However, there is a two kilometre long section with a 100 kilometres per hour speed limit.  Two kilometres is the minimum distance for a 100 kilometres per hour section of road under the Rule.  It is proposed to reduce the speed limit of the 100 kilometres per hour section to 80 kilometres per hour for consistency and compatibility with on-going commercial development. 

5.15    It is considered that the nature of the road, in particular the geometric standard, volume and composition of heavy traffic and land use visible from the road, creates a situation that supports a speed limit below 100 kilometres per hour.  This is also supported by the 2014 count information.  North of Ryans Road, the average vehicle speed was recorded at 88 kilometres per hour.  North of Yaldhurst Road, observed average speeds were a lower 73 kilometres per hour.  Pound Road has a volume of 9,000 vehicles per day north of Yaldhurst Road, with a peak hour volume of 1,100 vehicles per day.  

5.16    The Pound Road/McLeans Island Road route is classified as Medium/High risk.  In the last five years there have been four fatalities and nine serious injury crashes on the route.  The last fatality occurred in April 2016. 

5.17    It is considered that setting the speed limit on Pound Road at 80 kilometres per hour gives the best outcome in terms of compliance with the Rule, safety and consistency. 

5.18    It is noted that the recommendations in this report align with the recommendations for the Fendalton/Waimairi ward for changes to the speed limit on Pound Road and McLeans Island Road to the north of Yaldhurst Road. 

Roberts Road

5.19    The 1.3 kilometre rural section of Roberts Road has a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour. This does not meet the minimum length requirement under the Rule.  It is proposed to change the speed limit to 80 kilometres per hour to be consistent with the existing speed limit of the section of Pound Road that Roberts Road intersects.  This change assists achieving speed limit consistency in this general area.

Waterloo Road

5.20    The speed limit of the 3.2 kilometre section of Waterloo Road between Hornby and Templeton is 100 kilometres per hour.  Despite the speed limit, there is little to be gained by accelerating to 100 kilometres per hour on this stretch of road due to stop controlled approaches on both Waterloo Road approaches to its intersection with Barters Road near the middle of the 100 kilometres per hour section.   

5.21    There is ongoing industrial development in the north eastern section of Waterloo Road.  Access to the Waterloo Business Park is via Islington Avenue from a new intersection with Waterloo Road north east of Pound Road. 

5.22    The proposed 80 kilometres per hour speed limit is consistent with other proposed speed limit changes and more compatible with the industrial development occurring in the vicinity.  

5.23    It is noted that the speed limit on Waterloo Road may need to be reassessed as part of the New Zealand Transport Agency Barters Road/Pound Road intersection upgrade.  In principle, the project is anticipated to reduce the speed limit on Waterloo Road, for which the current proposal to reduce the speed limit to 80 kilometres per hour is consistent. 

Wigram Road

5.24    The one kilometre section of Wigram Road from Halswell Junction Road to Dunbars Road has a speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour.  However, this speed is not reasonably achievable on the road due to the longest straight section being 350 metres long.  There are four individual bends on the section of road, each with an advisory speed of 45 kilometres per hour or less.  The northern section of the road provides residential access on the eastern side of the road.  There is ongoing residential development occurring on this section of the road. 

5.25    A speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour is more consistent with residential development and speed that is actually achievable on the road.    

Wilmers Road

5.26    Wilmers Road is an urban fringe street with a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.  The southern end of the street was realigned as a result of the Southern Motorway extension in 2013.  More recently, the cul-de-sac end on the original alignment was stopped.  There has been recent residential subdivision fronting the middle section of Wilmers Road.

5.27    The current 80 kilometres per hour speed limit section on Wilmers Road is 950 metres long.  This is less than the one kilometre minimum length specified in the Rule.  It is considered that the present street environment is comparable to the adjacent 60 kilometres per hour section of Awatea Road.  Changing the speed limit on Wilmers Road to 60 kilometres per hour, as proposed, is aligned with the development that has occurred and assists having consistent speed limits within the general area. 

5.28   

6.   Option 1 – Set Speed Limits in Accordance with Consultation Proposal

Option Description

The preferred option involves changing speed limits in accordance with the consultation proposal, as described above and indicated in Attachments A and B.    Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

General

6.4       The Council consulted on 31 proposed speed limit changes across the city.  A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 1,500 property and business owners, residents and other key stakeholders.  It was also emailed to residents’ groups and stakeholders, and posted on the Have Your Say website.

6.5       In total, 224 individuals or organisations sent in feedback on the 31 proposals. 

6.6       Eleven submitters, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, support all proposed changes. Forty seven additional comments were received relating to the changes within the Riccarton/ Wigram ward.

Carrs Road

6.7       One submission, specific to Carrs Road, supports the proposed 50 kilometres per hour speed limit. 

Marshs Road/Whincops Road/Quaifes Road

6.8       Four responses were received on the proposed inclusion of the Marshs Road/Whincops Road and Quaifes Road intersection into the 50 kilometres per hour zone. All support the change. 

6.9       Three of the four responses seek additional speed reduction along the length of Quaifes Road.  The speed limit of Quaifes Road was reviewed as part of the current review process.  This was specifically requested by the Community Board.  No consultation was undertaken because the outcome of the review was that the speed limit on Quaifes Road, in general, is appropriate.  In 2014, the speed limit on Quaifes Road was subject to a review and the speed limit was reduced from 100 kilometres per hour to 80 kilometres per hour.  As part of the current review, it was determined that there has not been any significant change to the road or development.  The exception is the reconfiguration of the Marshs Road/Whincops Road/Quaifes Road intersection, but in this location it is proposed to reduce the speed limit.   Under the Rule, the calculated speed for Quaifes Road is 100 kilometres per hour.  The current speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour is lower than that prescribed by the Rule.  A lower speed limit would undoubtedly be ineffectual and subject to a high level of non-compliance. 

6.10    It is acknowledged that there is increasing recreational activity in this general area due to population growth.  This remains within the context of what a driver would typically expect on any rural road in the general area and is not a reason in itself to reduce the speed limit.  It is noted that the straight alignment of Quaifes Road enables excellent forward visibility of roadside hazards. 

6.11    One response commented that residential development at the Sabys Road end of Quaifes Road had not been taken into account.  There is some low density established residential development at the southern end of Quaifes Road.  This is not new development.  Prior to 2014, when the speed limit on Quaifes Road was lowered from 100 kilometres per hour, the Sabys Road end of Quaifes Road already had a speed limit of 80 kilometres per hour.  The speed limit, level of roadside development and the standard of the road, remain unchanged in this location. 

Owaka Road and Roberts Road

6.12    There were no specific comments on the proposed changes to Owaka Road and Roberts Road.

Halswell Junction Road

6.13    Five comments were received on the proposed 60 kilometres per hour extension on Halswell Junction Road.  Three submissions support the proposed speed limit.  Two of these seek a further reduction to 50 kilometres per hour.  One of the opposing submissions also seeks a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit.  The remaining submission seeks that the 80 kilometres per hour speed limit be retained for the efficient movement of traffic. 

6.14    It is acknowledged that the calculated speed under the Rule for this section of Halswell Junction Road is 80 kilometres per hour.  However, is it considered that this does not adequately reflect the change in environment that has occurred through the reconstruction of the road and development associated with the Longhurst subdivision.  Likewise, the road does not resemble a typical 50 kilometres per hour suburban arterial, and it would be unreasonable to expect drivers to travel at this speed on the road.  A high level of non-compliance would result from setting the speed limit at 50 kilometres per hour. 

6.15    The proposed 60 kilometres per hour speed limit is not only the best compromise between the road environment and drivers’ expectations, it also gives the best compromise across the submissions received. 

Wilmers Road

6.16    One response specific to Wilmers Road was received, supporting the proposal.  The response did also state that 50 kilometres per hour would have been preferred.  There is insufficient development on the street to justify a 50 kilometres per hour speed limit at present.  

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.18    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $4,000 to revise speed limit signage

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

6.20    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

6.21    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003 and subsequent amendments. 

6.22    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides the Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.23    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.25    None identified

Implementation

6.26    Implementation dependencies – Council approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.28    The advantages of this option include:

·   Speed limits are set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the roads

·   Reduced potential for crashes and high severity injuries

6.29    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Longer travel times

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing speed limits.  

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community feedback on proposed changes. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Does not address crash risk, on Pound Road in particular. 

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies – Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains existing travel times

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address speed related safety issues that would result if drivers are to continue to use streets at the current speed limits 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Riccarton Wigram Ward (Western) Consultation Plan

 

b 

Proposed Speed Limits Riccarton Wigram Ward (Southern) Consultation Plan

 

 

 

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

Ryan Rolston - Senior Traffic Engineer

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

29.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 27 July 2016

Reference:

16/889654

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held a meeting on 27 July 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

27 July 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 27 July 2016

310

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

30.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 2 August 2016

Reference:

16/920420

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held a meeting on 2 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

2 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 2 August 2016

316

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

31.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 16 August 2016

Reference:

16/976037

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held a meeting on 16 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

16 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 16 August 2016

322

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 23 August 2016

 

32.    Audit New Zealand - Audit Arrangements Letter

Reference:

16/1006730

Contact:

Patricia Christie

patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

(The Staff Recommendation was accepted without change.)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the content of the draft audit arrangements letter received from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Approve the Mayor signing the final audit arrangements letter once received from Audit New Zealand.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Audit New Zealand - Audit Arrangements Letter

346

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2016 Draft Audit Arrangements Letter

348

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Audit New Zealand - Audit Arrangements Letter

Reference:

16/867356

Contact:

Patricia Christie

Patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to confirm the terms of the audit engagement with Audit New Zealand for the audit of the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the receipt of the draft audit arrangements letter (attached) from Audit New Zealand and to fulfil the Audit and Risk Management Committee terms of reference.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decision on the community.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approve the content of the draft audit arrangements letter received from Audit New Zealand.

2.         Approve the Mayor signing the final audit arrangements letter once received from Audit New Zealand.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The draft audit arrangements letter for the audit of the Council’s financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2016 has been received by management from Audit New Zealand.

4.2       In accordance with the terms of reference of the Audit and Risk Management Committee, it is the role of the Audit and Risk Management Committee to confirm the terms of engagement with the external auditor and to consider the adequacy of the nature and scope of the audit, the timetable and fees.

4.3       Management have reviewed the content of the draft audit arrangements letter and discussed the content with Audit New Zealand. The following points are noted:

4.3.1   The audit issues raised in the draft letter were as expected based on the issues raised in previous audits and management letters.

 

 

4.3.2   The audit issues for 2016 include:

·     Review of the Council’s progress against the recommendations in the Office of the Auditor General’s report on the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) alliance.

·     A high level review of the Council’s project management and project governance structures and processes that support the large rebuild projects. In particular whether the recommendations in the Office of the Auditor General’s report on the new Central Library have been acted upon.

4.3.3   The timetable in the letter was agreed with Council staff.

4.3.4   The audit fees of $320,200 plus disbursements and GST, set out are in accordance with the Audit Proposal Letter.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2016 Draft Audit Arrangements Letter

 

 

 

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

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Peter Gudsell - General Manager Finance and Commercial

 


Council

08 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


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 4 August 2016

 

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

Reference:

16/918472

Contact:

Peter Vause

peter.vause@ccc.govt.nz

841 8856

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff and Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

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.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

South Library and Beckenham Service Centre Repair and Strengthening Options Report

362

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Final Structural Report  South Library

369

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

South Library and Beckenham Service Centre Repair and Strengthening Options Report

Reference:

16/725283

Contact:

Peter Vause

Peter.Vause@ccc.govt.nz

941-8856

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to enable the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee to recommend that Council consider and endorse the recommended option to repair and strengthen the South Library and Beckenham Service Centre.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

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.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Libraries

·     Level of Service: 3.1.2 Residents have access to a physical and digital library relevant to local community need or profile

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Repair and Strengthen (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Repair, Strengthen and Full Slab Replacement

·     Option 3 – Repair, Strengthen, Full Slab Replacement and Re-levelling

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

Option 1 was deemed to offer the best value for money out of the three (3) options, for the following reasons:

·     Lowest Cost

·     Shortest Time Frame

·     Least disruption to services

·     No need for excavations and avoidance of all associated ground risks i.e. high water table contamination etc.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

 

The Christchurch South Library sustained structural damage from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

Following a detailed engineering evaluation by OPUS, the building was laterally propped and it was deemed to be safe to occupy.  The NBS% exceeds 34% and any brittle collapse mechanisms have been removed. The building is fully functional and had 450,000 visitors in the first eight (8) months of the period 2015-2016.

Consultants were engaged to carry out investigations to inform the repair strategies outlined below.

6.   Option 1 – Strengthening to 100% NBS (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Option 1

a.    The building will be strengthened to 100% NBS.

b.    Includes repair and strengthening to the superstructure only.

c.     It does not include works to the foundation or re-levelling of the floor slab.

d.    OPUS advises that the settlement of the building is within normal acceptable tolerances and re-levelling the slab and foundation is unwarranted.

e.    The foundations and slab will be able to be re- levelled if the building experiences further settlement as a result of any future SLS (Serviceability Limit State) or ULS (Ultimate Limit State) events

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       This option is consistent with community views and preferences to retain Library services on this site.  Future communications and community engagement will take place prior to works commencing regarding alternative arrangements for library services while works are underway.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.5.1   Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan

6.5.2   Long Term Plan 2015-2025

Financial Implications

6.6       The Cost of Implementation  is estimated at $8.6M (within budget)

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – All systems that have reached the end of their service their life expectancy, will be replaced or upgraded to current standards and technology. This will result in a reduction of maintenance and ongoing costs.

6.8       Funding source – Christchurch City Council

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Delays in the delivery of the New Central Library can cause delays in the repair or rebuild of the South Library

Mitigation: The building is fully functional in its current state and this will not be a major problem.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - To maintain provision of library services, construction will start after the New Central Library project is finished.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Subject to 6.11 above, construction will commence in August 2018.  The estimated construction period is 10-12 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Best value option

·   The Library will remain closed for a relatively short period (in comparison with the other options)

·   Does not require excessive strip-out

·   Most environmentally friendly option

·   It will upgrade the building to 100%NBS at IL3

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Will not improve the building’s seismic resilience beyond code requirement.

7.   Option 2 – Repair and Strengthening, including full slab replacement

Option Description

7.1       The building will be strengthened to 100% NBS.

7.2       Includes the installation of props to support the superstructure and then strengthen parts of it. Column footings will then be broken out and replaced with 400mm thick raft slab

Significance

7.3       The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Not required at this stage of the project, although future communications and community engagement will take place prior to works commencing regarding alternative arrangements while works are underway.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan

7.6.2   Long Term Plan 2015-2025

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – ca $14M (within Budget)

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – All systems that have reached the end of their service their life expectancy, will be replaced or upgraded to current standards and technology. This will result in a reduction of maintenance and ongoing costs.

7.9       Funding source – Christchurch City Council (CCC)

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Delays in the delivery of the New Central Library can cause delays in the repair or the rebuild of the South Library.

Mitigation: The building is fully functional in its current state and this will not be a problem.

7.12    A high water table can possibly create problems during the excavation phase.

Mitigation: Site de-watering to be used; construction cost will increase.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - To maintain provision of library services, construction will start after the New Central Library project is finished.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – Subject to 7.13 above, construction will commence in August 2018.  The estimated construction period is 16-18 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Building will be 100%NBS after implementation

·   The building’s capacity to withstand future potential lateral spreading and differential settlement will be increased.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased cost

·   Longer Service disruption.

·   All internal building components will be stripped out.

8.   Option 3 – Repair and Strengthening, including full slab replacement and re-levelling

Option Description

8.1       The building will be strengthened to 100% NBS.

8.2       Includes the installation of props to support the superstructure

8.3       Re-level entire building using grout injection.

8.4       Assume removal and replacement of 20% of external glazing and cladding.

8.5       Establish new top of slab level, replace with 400mm thick raft slab

Significance

8.6       The level of significance of this option is medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.7       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

8.8       Not required at this stage of the project, although future communications and community engagement will take place prior to works commencing regarding alternative arrangements while works are underway.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.9.1   Libraries 2025 Facilities Plan

8.9.2   Long Term Plan 2015-2016

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation – ca. $16.2M (approximately $700K over budget)

8.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – All systems that have reached the end of their service their life expectancy, will be replaced or upgraded to current standards and technology. This will result in a reduction of maintenance and ongoing costs.

8.12    Funding source – Christchurch City Council (CCC)

Legal Implications

8.13    There are no legal implications

Risks and Mitigations

8.14    Delays in the delivery of the New Central Library can cause delays in the repair or rebuild of the South Library.

Mitigation: The building is fully functional in its current state and this will not be a major problem.

8.15    A high water table can possibly create problems during the excavation phase.

Mitigation: Site dewatering can be used, construction cost however will increase

8.16    Environmental concerns due to proximity to Heathcote River and presence of three wells within the plot of land.

Mitigation: Commission a suitably experienced design team and contractor

Implementation

8.17    Implementation dependencies - To maintain provision of library services, construction will start after the New Central Library project is finished.

8.18    Implementation timeframe – Subject to 8.17 above, construction will commence in August 2018.  The estimated construction period is 18-20 months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Building to be brought back to 100%NBS

·   The building’s capacity to withstand potential future lateral spreading and differential settlement will be increased

·   The building will be completely levelled

8.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Least value option

·   Most time-consuming option

·   Greatest Service disruption.

·   All internal building components will be stripped out

·   Increased environmental risk in comparison with the other two options

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Final Structural Report  South Library

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Vause,           Acting Manager Anchor Projects & Facilities Rebuild

Approved By

Liam Nolan,              Head of Vertical Capital Delivery & Professional Services

Jason Rivett,            Finance Business Partner

David Adamson,     General Manager City Services

 


Council

08 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

08 September 2016

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee  – 18 August 2016

 

34.    Transitional City Projects - Property Owner Incentive Programme

Reference:

16/999690

Contact:

Ceciel De La Rue

ceciel.delarue@ccc.govt.nz

941 5237

 

 

 

 

1.  Staff and Strategy and Finance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve continuation of the Transitional City Projects – Property Owner Incentive Programme for a further two years with the following recommended changes:

a.      Permit the allocation of this incentive to qualifying properties in identified regeneration areas including the Central City and Suburban Centres with approval by the Unit Manager Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Transitional City Projects - Property Owner Incentive Programme

402

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Council 16 April 2015 - Clause 21 - Resoltuion

408

 

 


Council

08 September 2016

 

 

Transitional City Projects - Property Owner Incentive Programme

Reference:

16/595235

Contact:

Ceciel De La Rue

ceciel.delarue@ccc.govt.nz

941 5237

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to review the existing programme and make a recommendation to Council in relation to extension of the Transitional City Projects – Property Owner Incentive Programme.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council resolution passed at the Christchurch City Council meeting 16 April 2015.

1.3       The Council resolved to approve this programme for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, with a review to determine success and consider whether the incentive should continue in its current form, be amended or cease.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the criteria in the Significance and engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Strategy and Finance Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve continuation of the Transitional City Projects – Property Owner Incentive Programme for a further two years with the following recommended changes:

             a.         Permit the allocation of this incentive to qualifying properties in identified regeneration areas including the Central City and Suburban Centres with approval by the Unit Manager Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.22 Plan and collaborate to deliver Transitional City Projects in the Central City and Suburban Centres to support long term recovery

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - (preferred option) Retain the current programme with minor amendments; to allow greater flexibility to this incentive, increasing the range of temporary projects that can be enabled.

·     Option 2 – Cease the programme; i.e. rely on existing processes and tools without the incentive programme to support temporary activation and regeneration.

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Support temporary activity in identified regeneration areas across the city, complementing other tools and initiatives

·     Supporting other existing commercial businesses and enabling an environment where new businesses can more easily establish

·     Incentivises the provision of spaces for community and entrepreneurial activity

·     A positive initiative that supports tidy, activated sites.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Funding required to provide the incentive (although funding is within budget).

4.4       Option Summary – Advantage and Disadvantages Option 2

4.4.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   No budget implication.

4.4.2   The disadvantages of this option include

·    Unlikely to support ongoing delivery of transitional projects

·    Removes a valuable option for Life in Vacant Spaces to incentivise property owners

·    Likely to disappoint those property owners already receiving the incentive and agreements for projects on existing sites may be at risk.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       This programme was implemented in 2015 to increase the level of temporary activity in the Central City and Suburban Centres by providing an incentive to property owners (of vacant sites and buildings) to permit temporary activity to take place whilst awaiting longer term development. This approach supports longer term regeneration of the city by activating spaces and connecting residents and visitors with those areas of the city.

·   Private property owners are eligible to apply for a grant of up to $5000 per rating unit per year based on qualifying projects activating the site (note that a property may consist of more than one rating unit).

·   Once an application is received this is assessed and, if eligible approved, a grant is paid directly to their rating account as a credit. Eligibility criteria include; site location, the proposed temporary use, the legal arrangement through which the activity is permitted, and a duration of 3 months minimum. Council or Crown owned sites are not eligible.

·   Private property owners are recognised through this incentive for their contribution to the creative and entrepreneurial culture of the wider city by temporarily providing their site or building for qualifying projects.

·   Assists regeneration of the city, supporting existing commercial businesses and enabling an environment where new businesses can more easily establish.

·   Supports entrepreneurial ventures through the ability to test and trial projects under low overhead costs and supports community engagement with the area.

·   Operates as part of the urban regeneration toolkit to leverage the use of land that may not otherwise be made available or not available for as long.

·   A positive initiative that supports tidy, activated sites.

Review

5.2       The programme has had a successful first year and increased the range and scale of properties made available to projects. A total of 15 rating units were incentivised for temporary activity at a total value of $23,000 approximately.

·   Life in Vacant Spaces has been the primary organisation utilising this incentive. They provide a qualifying project matching service and sign up property owners and facilitate the process with Council. The process via LiVS supports strong connection with projects and has simplified and reduced the level of administration required by Council. However Property owners and qualifying projects can approach the Council directly for assessment of eligibility.

·   As a key point of contact for qualifying projects LiVS benefits from the property owner incentive programme and strongly support the retention of it in the interim as it improves the reception of initial conversations regarding temporary use of sites and facilitates quicker decisions by property owners and enables longer term use of sites. They also see it as a key incentive as more new builds come online with the opportunity of yet-to-be-leased interior spaces to activate.

·   Property owners have expressed that the acknowledgement of their contribution is appreciated and valuable in terms of being able to have sites productively activated whilst they plan for the longer term development.

·   This form of incentive is a tool being taken up by other Councils. Marlborough District Council has recently successfully delivered two ‘transitional’ parks on vacant sites in consultation with the Blenheim Business Association with positive feedback generated as a result. As part of these projects the property owner’s rates are being covered by the Council.

·   A qualifying criteria for the incentive since approval in April 2015 has been locations within the Central City or Suburban Centres Programme. Outside of these areas there are vacant sites and communities that might benefit from temporary activation of these sites. Whilst this is not intended to represent a significant number of sites, it would beneficial to amend the criteria to enable consideration beyond the Central City and Suburban Centres Programme area where activation would support wider regeneration. 

·   Table 1 below provides a summary of the sites and activation supported between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2016.

Address

Qualifying Projects

Value

166 Armagh St

Alhambra Gardens, Rollicking Gelato

2723.28

128-130 Lichfield St

Volunteer Army office, food trucks, Greening the Rubble initiatives

1868.88

Shop 3 Cathedral Junction

Imagination Station

2123.50

323, 327, 333 Manchester & 152, 156, 158 Peterborough

Cultivate Christchurch – Peterborough Urban Farm

1190.30

2313.80

1150.60

1744.80

1740.70

1410.20

597 Colombo St,

597A Colombo St

Greening the Rubble garden

902.88

931.12

18 Cranmer Square

Green Roofs demonstration project

1948.24

196 Armagh St

Gap Golf and other short term projects, recently Crate Escape

2209.62

382 Colombo St

Plant Gang garden

680.89

406 Colombo St

Pod Park, Sydenham

796.39

 

·   A total of 15 rating units (in 9 different locations) in the first year of the programme is considered to be successful, particularly given the number of activations supported through this incentive. In the coming year it is anticipated that activation of existing sites would continue with new sites also coming on line. The total number of sites would therefore increase, but cannot be accurately predicted. For the purpose of the forthcoming year a value of approximately $40-45,000 would be the maximum uptake. This incentive is met through a grant from the existing Transitional City Projects funding and would be met similarly in the coming year if an extension is approved.

6.   Option 1 - Retain the current programme with a minor amendment (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Retain the current Transitional City Projects Property Owner Incentive Programme with a minor amendment to support identified regeneration areas and increase the range of temporary activities that can be enabled.

6.2       The minor amendment to the existing programme being the application of the incentive to qualifying properties in identified regeneration areas which may be Central City, Suburban Masterplan Programme areas or other areas with approval by the Head of Urban Design, Regeneration and Heritage.

Significance

6.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The experiences of Life in Vacant Spaces (who have been the primary organisation utilising this tool) and private property owners that are part of the current programme have been collated and are noted in paragraph 5.2. These stakeholders would support continuation of the programme.

Alignment with Council Plan and Policies

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

6.6.1   Although this issue is not specifically identified in the Council's Long Term Plan it will assist in improving the urban environment and is consistent with the longer term strategy of urban regeneration to enliven the city and connect residents and visitors with the rebuild

Financial Implications

6.7       The total value of the incentive over the past year is approximately $23,000. In the forthcoming year, with an increase in sites expected, the budget required to support this option would be up to $45,000.

6.8       The funding source would be the Transitional City Programme (capital budget), Urban Regeneration.

6.9       Minimal staff time is required to provide administration of the programme, particularly where the contact is initially facilitated by LiVS.

Legal Implications

6.10    None applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    None identified.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - none identified. As an extension of an existing programme the processes are already set up and budget provisionally set aside for the forthcoming year.

6.13    Implementation timeframe – none.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Support temporary activity in identified regeneration areas across the city, complementing other tools and initiatives

·   Supporting other existing commercial businesses and enabling an environment where new businesses can more easily establish

·   A positive initiative that supports tidy, activated sites and provision of spaces for community and entrepreneurial activity

·   Providing incentive to and recognition of property owner’s role in the rebuild.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Funding required to provide the incentive (although will be within budget).

7.   Option 2 – Cease the programme and rely on existing processes/tools

Option Description

7.1       Cease the Transitional City Projects Property Owner Incentive Programme at 30 June 2016 and rely on existing processes and tools to support temporary activation and regeneration.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The experiences of Life in Vacant Spaces (who have been the primary organisation utilising this tool) and private property owners that are part of the current programme have been collated and are noted in paragraph 5.2. These stakeholders would prefer to see option 1 proceed rather than ceasing the programme.

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 – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       None applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Property owners that have received the incentive over the past year would need to be informed of the decision (they have been informed that the programme is currently being reviewed and a decision will be made shortly). Projects that are taking place on these sites may be at risk.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - none identified.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No budget implication.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Unlikely to support ongoing delivery of transitional projects

·   Removes a valuable option for Life in Vacant Spaces to incentivise property owners

·   Likely to disappoint those property owners already receiving the incentive and agreements for projects on existing sites may be at risk. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Council 16 April 2015 - Clause 21 - Resoltuion

 

 

 

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