Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 22 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

 

 

15 September 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

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

22 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

22 September 2016

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 6

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 6

3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes.......................................................................................... 6

4.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 6

4.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 6

4.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 6

5.       Presentation of Petitions......................................................................................................... 6

6.       Chief Executive's Report......................................................................................................... 13

Akaroa-Wairewa Community Board

7.       Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 10 August 2016........................................ 25

Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board

8.       Governors Bay Jetty................................................................................................................ 37

9.       Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Minutes - 17 August 2016................................. 55

Spreydon-Heathcote Community Board

10.     Simeon Park  - Deed of Lease Approval to Canterbury Playcentre Association............... 73

11.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 6 September 2016............................. 83

Burwood-Pegasus Community Board

12.     Breezes Road - School Patrol at Haeata Community Campus............................................ 89

13.     Shirley Tennis Club Variation to Lease.................................................................................. 97

14.     Proposed Licence Agreement - Bickerton Reserve - Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust....................................................................................................................................... 105

15.     Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 15 August 2016..................................... 117

16.     Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 5 September 2016................................ 125

Fendalton-Waimairi Community Board

17.     Riccarton Leagues Club - Variation of Lease on Crosbie Park........................................... 133

18.     Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 12 September 2016.......................... 161

Hagley-Ferrymead Community Board

19.     Proposed Speed Limit Changes Hagley / Ferrymead Ward............................................... 173

20.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 16 August 2016.................................... 181

21.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 6 September 2016............................... 191

Riccarton-Wigram Community Board

22.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 30 August 2016.................................... 201

23.     Te Hapua Halswell Centre Cafe - New Lease and Surrender............................................. 207

Audit and Risk Management Committee

24.     Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 23 August 2016............................... 221

Chief Executive and Employment Matters Subcommittee

25.     Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 30 August 2016......... 225

Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

26.     Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda - Options for Repair and Strengthening..................... 229

27.     Proposed Council Housing Policy........................................................................................ 243

28.     Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Minutes - 1 September 2016................................................................................................................................................ 359

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

29.     Drinking Water E. coli Testing and Risk Mitigation Processes.......................................... 369

30.     Proposed Bus Shelter Manchester Street........................................................................... 379

31.     Proposed CBD 30kph Speed Limit Threshold Enhancements........................................... 389

32.     Infrastructure Design Standard 2016.................................................................................. 411

33.     Notice of Motion................................................................................................................... 431

34.     Mona Vale Gate House & Halswell Quarry - Commercial Premises Options................... 441

35.     Medway Street renewal and adjustments to the Street Renewal programme. ............ 481

36.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 1 September 2016.. 489

Strategy and Finance Committee

37.     Development Contributions Policy 2015 - Proposed Amendments (2016)..................... 549

38.     Final 2017-19 Statements of Intent for Council Controlled Organisations ..................... 585

39.     Chairperson's Report: Capital Endowment Fund Working Group................................... 707

40.     Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 15 September 2016..................................... 727

Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Rūnanga Committee

41.     Revised draft Relationship Agreement between Christchurch City Council and Nga Papatipu Rununga................................................................................................................................. 729

42.     Te Hononga Council - Papatipu Runanga Committee Minutes - 1 September 2016...... 749

STAFF REPORTS

43.     Review of Temporary Accommodation Standards............................................................ 755

44.     Coastal Hazard Assessment - Land Information Memorandum Revision......................... 763

45.     Work programme to address Peer Review Panel's review of T&T Coastal Hazard Assessment Report, June 2015.................................................................................................................. 767

46.     St Pauls Trinity Pacific Presbyterian Church - Grant Change of Purpose Request......... 773

47.     Governance matters............................................................................................................. 803

48.     Halswell Commons Homestead - Development Contributions Remission Application.. 837

49.     Adoption of the Annual Report for ARLA for period ending 30 June 2016..................... 863

50.     Compliance with Drinking Water Standards - Northwest Christchurch.......................... 875

51.     Submission from the Christchurch City Council on 'Better Urban Planning - draft report prepared by the NZ Productivity Commision.................................................................... 899

52.     Cranford Regeneration Plan................................................................................................ 917

53.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 920  

 

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 and 15 September 2016 be confirmed (refer page 7).

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.  


 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 8 September 2016

Time:                                    9.39am

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 Yani Johanson

Councillor Paul Lonsdale

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Andrew Turner

 

 

8 September 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz


 

  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00360

That the apologies for absence from Councillor’s Gough and Jones, and apologies for lateness from Councillor’s Chen and Manji be accepted.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                      Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Deputy Mayor Buck and Councillor’s Lonsdale and Turner declared an interest in item 38 Transfer of City Housing Land and did not take part in this item.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00361

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on Thursday, 25 August 2016 be confirmed.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                      Carried

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

There were no public forum presentations.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There was no presentation of petitions.

49. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00362

That public excluded item 52 - Development Christchurch Limited Report - 95 Kilmore Street, 82-84 Peterborough Street report be received and considered at the Council meeting on Thursday, 8 September 2016.

AND

That item 50 – Coastal Hazard Assessment – Land Information Memorandum Revision not be received and considered at the meeting and that it be considered at the Council meeting on 22  September 2016.

Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                                         Carried

 


 

Pam Richardson, Chairperson of the Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board joined the table for the discussion of items 6 and 7.

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00363

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

13 July 2016.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

Report from Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board - 10 August 2016

7.   40 Rue Jolie - Yew Cottage Options Report

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00364

The Council resolved:

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.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

Paula Smith, Chairperson of the Lyttleton/Mt Herbert Community Board was an apology. The Mayor wished to acknowledge her contribution to her Ward and the City as a whole. The Mayor noted that Paula stepped up during a challenging time following the earthquakes.

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00365

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

 

AND

 

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

 

Councillor Turner/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                           Carried

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer item 8.

 


 

Mike Davidson, Chairperson of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board joined the table for the discussion of items 10 - 14.

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 3 August 2016

10. Chancellor Street Footbridge

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00366

That the Council:

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

 

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 3 August 2016

11. Proposed Speed Limit Changes Shirley/Papanui Ward


 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00367

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. 

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

Councillor Manji joined the meeting at 10:00 am.

Report from Shirley/Papanui Community Board - 31 August 2016

12. Proposed Shirley Community Centre Rebuild Request for Delegated Authority

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00368

That  the Council:

1.              Delegates the necessary authority (as per the St Albans Community facility) 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.

2.              Request that the Community Board talk with staff around potential options for a regeneration plan in this area under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00369

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

3 August 2016.

 

AND

 

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

17 August 2016.

Councillor Cotter/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                           Carried

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer Item 13.

 


 

Karolin Potter and Melanie Coker, Chair and Deputy Chair of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board joined the table for the discussion of items 15 – 17.

Report from Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - 2 August 2016

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00370

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.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00371

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

 

AND

 

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

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer item 16.

 

Andrea Cummings, Chairperson of the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board, joined the table for the discussion of items 18 – 20.

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 15 August 2016

18. Berm Trees in Subdivisons

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00372

 

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. 

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 15 August 2016

19. Proposed Speed Limit Change Dunlops Road

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00373

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.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor East                                                                                                                Carried

 

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00374

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

1 August 2016.

Councillor East/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                                Carried

 

Councillor Chen joined the meeting at 10:31 am.

Val Carter, Chairperson of the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board, joined the table for the discussion of items 21 – 23. The Mayor wished to acknowledge and thank Val for her service to her Ward as well as the City as a whole. Councillor Manji also reinforced the Mayor’s acknowledgement and noted that he was always impressed with how smoothly the Board has run and this is in large part due to the Chairperson.

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00375

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

 

AND

 

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

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer item 21.

 

Report from Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board - 29 August 2016

23. Proposed Speed Limit Changes Fendalton/Waimairi Ward Area

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00376

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. 

 

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 

Sara Templeton, Chairperson of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board joined the table for the discussion of item 24.

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00377

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

2 August 2016.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                          Carried

 

Mike Mora and Helen Broughton, Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board, joined the table for the discussion of items 25 – 31.

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 27 July 2016

25. Halswell Skate and Recreation Park - Site Selection

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00378

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

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                            Carried


 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 2 August 2016

26. Notice of Motion - Riccarton Service Centre

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00379

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.

Councillor Chen/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                            Carried

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 16 August 2016

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00380

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.

Councillor Chen/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                            Carried

 


 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 16 August 2016

28. Riccarton/Wigram Ward - Proposed Speed Limit Changes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00381

That the Council adopt the staff recommendation for the setting of speed limits in the Riccarton/Wigram ward as follows:

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.         That staff undertake additional consultation on a further reduced speed limit for Halswell Junction road, Quaifes Road, Marshs Road and Whincops Road (West of Marshs Road) and Sparks Road and report back to the Community Board by the end of December 2016.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                            Carried

 

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00382

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

27 July 2016.

 

AND

 

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

2 August 2016.

 

AND

 

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held

16 August 2016.

Councillor Chen/Deputy Mayor                                                                                                                            Carried

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer Item 29.

 

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

 

Council Decision

Refer Item 29.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.05am and resumed at 11.30am.


 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee - 23 August 2016

32. Audit New Zealand - Audit Arrangements Letter

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00383

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.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 

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

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

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00384

That the Council:

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

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

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

34. Transitional City Projects - Property Owner Incentive Programme

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00385

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.

Deputy Mayor/Councillor Lonsdale                                                                                                                     Carried

David East returned to the meeting at 11.34am.


 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

35. Development Christchurch Limited Update

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00386

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

36. Rates Issues for Properties Affected by District Plan Changes

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00387

That the Council:

1.    Adopt Option 3 – Provide a 50 percent rate remission to Area 3 properties, of the staff report.

2.    Request that staff provide a report back on rating issues raised by the Awatea Resident’s Association.

Councillor Lonsdale/Mayor                                                                                                                                     Carried

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

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

37. Performance report for the year to 30 June 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00388

That the Council:

1.         Receive this report.

2.         Approve net operational carry forward requests from 2015/16 of $20.5 million, together with associated funding sources (as detailed in Attachment E), to enable completion of projects in 2016/17 and beyond.

3.         Approve (as detailed in Attachment F) capital works and rebuild carry forwards requests of $187.8 million, noting this replaces an unspecified $165 million already included in the amended Long Term Plan, together with development contribution rebates and other capital recoveries of $77 million to enable completion of capital / rebuild projects in 2016/17 or later as indicated.

4.         Request a detailed report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee (or equivalent) on analysing the increased Customer Service Requests on undertaking channel sweeping and litter collection to agreed standards and the key hot spots.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 


 

 

39. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00389

That Ben Johnston of Anderson Lloyd remain after the public have been excluded for Item 47 of the public excluded agenda

AND

Rob Hall, Chief Executive and James Stewart of Development Christchurch Limited remain after the public have been excluded for Items 43 and 52 of the public excluded agenda.

AND

James Stewart of Development Christchurch Limited, James Riddoch, legal representative and Erin Tennant and John O’Hagan of Otakaro Limited remain after the public have been excluded for item 46 of the public excluded agenda.

AND

Paul Munro, Chief Executive of Christchurch City Holdings Limited remain after the public have been excluded for Item 48 of the public excluded agenda.

As they have knowledge that is relevant to those items and will assist the Council.

That at 11.53am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 488 to 490 of the agenda and pages 9 to 10 of the supplementary agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                      Carried

Councillor Johanson requested that his vote against items 46 and 47 being considered in Public Excluded be recorded.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1.39pm and reconvened at 2.09pm.

 

Deputy Mayor Buck and Councillors Turner and Lonsdale declared an interest in item 38 and took no part in the discussion or decision of this item.

 

38. Transfer of City Housing Land

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00390

3.1       The Council, noting:

3.1.1   its obligation under the Housing Accord entered into with the Government to capitalise the Otautahi Community Housing Trust by transferring $50m of assets to it; and

3.1.2   its resolutions of 9 July 2015 (headed ‘Capitalisation of Housing Entity as required by Housing Accord’) and 8 September 2016 (headed ‘Transfer of $50m Housing Fund Assets – Process’); and

3.1.3   that the Otautahi Community Housing Trust has now been formed; and

3.1.4   that it agreed on 25 August 2016 to enter into a Deed of Lease with the Otautahi Community Housing Trust of the Council’s operable social housing units; and

3.1.5   the strategic relationship between it and the Otautahi Community Housing Trust as the manager and operator of the Council’s operable social housing units and the principal vehicle for the delivery of the Council’s social housing objectives; and

3.1.6   its desire to support the charitable objects of the Otautahi Community Housing Trust in its management and operation of the Council’s social housing units and in its delivery of social housing outcomes in Christchurch;

3.2       And further noting:

3.2.1   that the Council has been advised that no 'offer-back' obligations arise under section 40 of the Public Works Act in respect of the properties referred to below, and

3.2.2   that the properties referred to below are no longer required for a public work; and

3.2.3   the Council’s policy to "publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise";

3.3       The Council agrees:

3.3.1   not to publicly tender the properties referred to below for sale on the basis of the reasons specified in paragraph 3.1 of this resolution above; and

3.3.2   as the first tranche of properties up to the value of $50m to be transferred from the Council to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust, to gift (at the following indicative values) the following properties to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust:

(a)       Charles Street (Lot 1 DP 48980) - $235,000 excluding GST (if any),

(b)       Louisson Courts (Lot 3 DP 28668) - $650,000 excluding GST (if any)

3.3.3   to delegate to the Manager Property Consultancy authority to negotiate and enter into such legal documentation with the Otautahi Community Housing Trust relating to the above properties as he shall consider appropriate or expedient to give effect to this resolution and to agree the values to be attributed to each property based on advice from a registered valuer.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                  Carried

Councillor Johanson and Councillor East requested their abstention be recorded.


 

 

39. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00391

That the persons listed in the previous resolution to exclude the public be permitted to remain again for those items as they have information that will assist the Council.

AND

That at 2.21pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 488 to 490 of the agenda be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                                            Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 2.35pm and the meeting concluded at 2.36pm.

    

 

CONFIRMED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

 

Christchurch City Council

Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Thursday 15 September 2016

Time:                                    9.34am

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

 

 

15 September 2016

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

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

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Manji and an apology for early departure from the Mayor.

 

Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                                   Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

4.   Public Participation

4.1  Public Forum

There were no public forum presentations.

4.2  Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

There was no presentation of petitions.

Councillor Jones joined the meeting at 9.36am.

24. Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00394

That the reports be received and considered at the Council meeting on Thursday, 15 September 2016.

26.       Appointment of Directors to Christchurch City Holding Limited, Lyttelton Port Company and Christchurch Development Corporation Holdings Limited

28.       Remediation of Asbestos Containing Material at QEII Park

Mayor/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

6.   Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee Minutes - 22 August 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00395

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Christchurch Civic Awards Subcommittee meeting held 22 August 2016.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

7.   Statements of Intent 2017-19 - Christchurch City Holdings Limited and subsidiaries and Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd and subsidiaries

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00396

That Council:

1.      Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd; and

2.      Notes the 2017-2019 Statements of Intent for Christchurch City Holdings Ltd’s subsidiaries:

·     Orion New Zealand Ltd

·     Christchurch International Airport Ltd

·     Lyttelton Port Company Ltd

·     Enable Services Ltd

·     City Care Ltd

·     Red Bus Ltd

·     EcoCentral Ltd

·     Development Christchurch Ltd

3.    Accepts the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Holdings Ltd (including Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd); and

         4.   Notes the 2017-2019 Statement of Intent for Canterbury Development Corporation Ltd’s   subsidiary CRIS Ltd.

         5.   Note that the letter of expectation for the Lyttelton Port Company Ltd will give clear direction that the Council expects that a cruise berth be developed and that every endeavour be made for cruise ships to be accommodated in the meantime and that Antarctic programme vessels also be accommodated.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

Councillor Manji joined the meeting at 9.48am.

 

Report from Strategy and Finance Committee - 18 August 2016

8.   Corporate Finance Report for the period ending 30 June 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00397

That the Council

1.            Receives this report.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 


 

 

9.   Strategy and Finance Committee Minutes - 18 August 2016

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00398

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Strategy and Finance Committee meeting held on 18 August 2016.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Gough                                                                                                                      Carried

 

10. Vehicle Windscreen Washers 12 month report

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00399

That the Council:

1.         Note the information in this report on the effective reduction in vehicle windscreen washing activity at intersections.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Jones                                                                                                                  Carried

 

11. Multicultural Strategy Update

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00400

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Turner                                                                                                                       Carried

 


14. Establish a Health and Safety Committee of Council

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00401

That the Council:

1.         Note the draft terms of reference document and appointment process and recommend to the new Council that they establish a Health and Safety Committee of the Council in line with the proposals as a matter of priority.

Councillor Lonsdale/Councillor Cotter                                                                                                                Carried

 


 

12. Intersection Improvement: Cashmere / Hoon Hay / Worsleys

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00402

That the Council:

1.         Resolve that the intersection improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection be funded by Council,

2.         Resolve that the intersection improvements at Cashmere/ Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection be scheduled for construction within the 2017/18 year.

3.         That the project ID # 17092 ‘RONS Downstream Route improvements: Marshland (Queen Elizabeth 2 – Shirley)’ be removed from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $26,520 - 2016/17, $265,200 - 2017/18 be redirected and the $742,560 -2018/19 be re-directed and re-phased to the 2017/18 year, for improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/Worsleys intersection.

4.         That the project ID # 17120 ‘Intersection Safety: Cashel/Fitzgerald’ be re-phased into the 2021/22 and 2022/23 years from the LTP programme for reconsideration at the 2018 review and the available funds of $250,000 - 2016/17 and $760,946 - 2017/18 be redirected to the intersection improvements at Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection.

5.         That the current LTP scheduled present day funds of $795,600 for Cashmere/Hoon Hay/ Worsleys intersection improvements spread over the 2021/22 and 2022/23 years be re-phased into the 2017/18 year. 

6.         Note that the staff assessment on the Canterbury Community Cycling Trust’s concept of an underpass proposal will be reported to Council for it to consider prior to the next Annual Plan.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

13. Rates Remission Consideration for South Awatea

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00403

That the Council:

1.         Provide a 25% rates remission for the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2017, for the four South Awatea properties which experienced a 50% increase in both land values and rates charges following the 2013 general rates revaluation.  The cost of this remission would be around $15,000.

Councillor Manji/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                         Carried

 


 

15. Lyttelton Design Review Panel - Correction of an Administration Error

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00404

That the Council amend resolution line 1 made at the Council meeting on 11 August 2016 regarding Item 8 – Chairperson’s Report – Lyttelton Design Review Panel, which should now read:

1.         Approve establishing a Lyttelton Design Review Panel as an eighteen month trial, to inform the 2018 Long Term Plan, as a subordinate decision making body of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board under the Local Government Act 2002.

Councillor Turner/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                              Carried

 

At this time the Mayor wished to acknowledge that this would be the final Council meeting for Councillor Ali Jones and thanked her for her contribution as a Council member.

16  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00405

That Paul Munro , Chief Executive of Christchurch City Holdings Limited, remain after the public have been excluded for Item 26 of the public excluded agenda as he has knowledge that is relevant to that item and will assist the Council.

AND

That at 10.53am the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 251 to 253 of the agenda and pages 5 to 6 of the supplementary agendas numbers 1 and 2 be adopted.

Mayor/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 12.25pm at which time the meeting concluded.

   

 

CONFIRMED THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Chairperson

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

6.        Chief Executive's Report

Reference:

16/1076333

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

karleen.edwards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for August 2016.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

August 2016 CE Report

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

7.        Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board Minutes - 10 August 2016

Reference:

16/1089324

Contact:

Liz Carter

liz.carter@ccc.govt.nz

941 5682

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board held a meeting on 10 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 Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board meeting held

10 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Akaroa/Wairewa Community Board - 10 August 2016

26

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board  – 21 September 2016

 

8.        Governors Bay Jetty

Reference:

16/1036921

Contact:

Kelly Hansen

Kelly.Hansen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8142

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board recommend:

1.         That the Council clarifies its intent and conditions for Council funding.

2.         That the Council approves the sale of the Governors Bay jetty to the Governors Bay Restoration Trust with an agreement that the Trust will sell the jetty back to the Council upon completion of the restoration.

3.         That the Council delegates authority to the Head of Parks to enter into the contract to sell the chattel (being the jetty) and the contract to purchase the jetty from the Governors Bay Restoration Trust in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement for the Transfer and Reconstruction of the Governors Bay Jetty.

 

2.  Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Recommendation to Council

Part A

The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board recommendation to Council will be circulated following the Board meeting on 21 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Governors Bay Jetty

38

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the Governers Bay Jetty 2016

46

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Governors Bay Jetty

Reference:

16/850074

Contact:

 Enter contact

Enter email address

Enter phone.

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board to recommend that the Council clarifies its intent and conditions for Council funding, approves the sale and subsequent purchase of the Governors Bay jetty to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust, and delegates authority to the Head of Parks to enter into a contract to sell and purchase the jetty.

1.2       There is no delegation to sell an asset, therefore a Council decision is required.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the jetty being of high local interest but of low impact on the majority of the city and the Council's activities.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board recommend:

1.         That the Council clarifies its intent and conditions for Council funding.

2.         That the Council approves the sale of the Governors Bay jetty to the Governors Bay Restoration Trust with an agreement that the Trust will sell the jetty back to the Council upon completion of the restoration.

3.         That the Council delegates authority to the Head of Parks to enter into the contract to sell the chattel (being the jetty) and the contract to purchase the jetty from the Governors Bay Restoration Trust in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement for the Transfer and Reconstruction of the Governors Bay Jetty.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Harbours and Marine Structures

·     Level of Service: 10.8.2 Proportion of customers satisfied with the state of marine structures provided by Council

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Sell jetty to Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust to restore and purchase back on completion (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Demolish jetty

·     Option 3 – Abandon jetty

·     Option 4 – The Council restores the jetty

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Implementation of a community-led initiative

·     The jetty is restored for community use

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Once the Council resume ownership there will be ongoing maintenance costs that will increase over time.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Governors Bay jetty is a Council-owned structure that is currently closed due to its unsafe condition, being old and degraded.

5.2       Opus Consultants NZ Ltd completed a condition assessment in 2014 and identified that numerous components of the jetty were in poor, unsafe condition and need to be replaced immediately for the jetty to reopen. They estimated the cost of repair at over $3 million. The remainder of the jetty will also require ongoing repair and renewal.

5.3       Residents of Governors Bay made submissions on the 2015-25 Long Term Plan requesting Council support to renew the jetty in partnership with the community. They offered fundraising and technical expertise to make this happen.

5.4       The Council allocated $535,000 in the 2018/19 financial year towards Governors Bay jetty renewal. The Council's intent and conditions for use of this funding and expectations of community input are not explicit and need to be clarified.

5.5       The community have formed the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust (the Trust) and have been investigating methods of renewing the jetty and working on a fundraising strategy. They are anticipating a funding target of $2.5 million on the basis of the estimated repair costs.

5.6       The Trust have come to the conclusion that a full restoration of the jetty would be more viable than repairing it. Full restoration will have a higher initial outlay than a repair but provides a far greater degree of certainty about design, cost, construction programme, final outcome, and ongoing maintenance. Council staff concur with this. The cost of full restoration is yet to be determined.

5.7       The Trust have requested to plan and manage restoration of the jetty themselves and have skilled personnel to do so.

5.8       To enable such a community-led project to occur, the Trust needs to take full control and responsibility for the jetty during its restoration.

5.9       It is proposed that the Council sell the jetty to the Trust with an agreement that the Trust will sell the jetty back to the Council upon completion of the restoration.

5.10    The Trust have no interest in retaining ownership of the jetty in the long term.


 

6.   Option 1 – Sell Jetty to Trust to restore and purchase back on completion (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Sell the jetty to the Governors Bay Jetty Restoration Trust to restore and purchase it back again once the restoration is complete.

6.2       An agreement between the Council and the Trust for the transfer and restoration of the Governors Bay Jetty has been negotiated with the Trust and approved by the Council’s Legal Services Unit. See attachment 1.

·        The Council will sell the jetty to the Trust for the sum of $1.

·        The Trust will be responsible for safety, fundraising, design, construction, contracting, project management, consents, and compliance.

·        The Council, as the ultimate owner, will be responsible for approving the design of the jetty.

·        Following restoration, the jetty will be purchased by the Council for the sum of $1.

6.3       Restoration of the jetty will begin once planning, approvals, and fundraising are complete. The Trust envisage that Council funding will be made available at this point.

6.4       Selling the jetty is supported by both the Head of Transport, the asset owner, and by the Head of Parks who manage the asset.

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to inform and consult the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value as it is renewing an existing structure, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Governors Bay community are specifically affected by this option due to the jetty being a significant local facility.  Community members have formed a Trust with the aim of restoring the jetty and they support this option. The Trust will need to engage with the wider community on their restoration plans.

6.8       The jetty is located within the takiwā of Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki). The Iwi Management Plan identifies the potential for too many coastal structures in the harbour as an issue. Tāngata whenua have a particular interest in ensuring that structures in the coastal marine area do not affect mahinga kai resources and use of the bay for mahinga kai purposes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – Council has allocated funding of $535,000 in the 2018/19 financial year towards the Governors Bay jetty renewal.  The Council's intent and conditions for use of this funding and expectations of community input are not explicit and will be determined before any funding is advanced.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $3,000 - $5,000 per annum, increasing over time.

6.12    Funding source – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

Legal Implications

6.13    The jetty has been deemed to be a chattel which the Council owns and therefore has the right to sell.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    There is a high risk that the Trust will not be able to raise sufficient funds for full restoration. In this case a phased approach to restoration may be possible as funds become available, the project could be re-scoped, the project may be delayed, or the project may be cancelled.

6.15    The coastal environment presents a number of physical constraints. Appropriate geotechnical and natural hazard investigations will be required to determine the design of the jetty including an assessment of foundation conditions, active coastal processes, sea level rise and seismicity.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - The project is dependent on community fundraising and capacity.

6.17    Implementation timeframe – 3-5 years

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Implementation of a community-led initiative.

·   The jetty is restored for community use.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Once the Council resume ownership there will be ongoing maintenance costs that will increase over time.

7.   Option 2 – Demolish Jetty

Option Description

7.1       Demolish and dispose of the existing jetty and do not replace.

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 to inform and consult the community.

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 Governors Bay community are specifically affected by this option due to the jetty being a significant local facility.  Community members have formed a Trust with the aim of restoring the jetty. They are opposed to removing the jetty.

7.5       The jetty is located within the takiwā of Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki). The Iwi Management Plan identifies the potential for too many coastal structures in the harbour as an issue. Tāngata whenua have a particular interest in ensuring that structures in the coastal marine area do not affect mahinga kai resources and use of the bay for mahinga kai purposes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - The Council has allocated funding towards renewal of the jetty in its amended Long Term Plan.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – Reallocate funding from renewal to removal of jetty.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - estimated $800,000 for full demolition

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

7.9       Funding source – Insufficient funds in the Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25 and would need to be addressed in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications with this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Community dissatisfaction.

7.12    Access onto the structure for demolition would be problematic, hence the high cost.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - Additional funding likely to be required to demolish and dispose of materials.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – 2018/19 financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lower cost than renewing jetty.

·   No ongoing cost.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Community dissatisfaction with loss of jetty.

8.   Option 3 – Abandon jetty

Option Description

8.1       Exclude public access for safety purposes by removing first part of jetty and abandon. The Harbour Master has confirmed that abandonment is acceptable as they do not foresee any navigational safety issues with this option.

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 to inform and consult the community.

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 Governors Bay community are specifically affected by this option due to the jetty being a significant local facility.  Community members have formed a Trust with the aim of restoring the jetty. They are opposed to abandoning the jetty.

8.5       The jetty is located within the takiwā of Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki). The Iwi Management Plan identifies the potential for too many coastal structures in the harbour as an issue. Tāngata whenua have a particular interest in ensuring that structures in the coastal marine area do not affect mahinga kai resources and use of the bay for mahinga kai purposes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - The Council has allocated funding towards renewal of the jetty in its amended Long Term Plan.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary - Reallocate funding from renewal to make safe and abandon jetty.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - $30,000

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

8.9       Funding source - Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

Legal Implications

8.10    There are potentially legal implications for the Council as a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) under current Health and Safety Legislation.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    Dissatisfied community

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - nil

8.13    Implementation timeframe – 2018/19 financial year

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Limited Council finances required to implement.

·   No ongoing costs.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Community dissatisfaction with loss of jetty

·   Negative impact on amenity value.

9.   Option 4 – The Council restores the jetty

Option Description

9.1       The Council undertakes restoration of the jetty.

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 to inform and consult the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       The Governors Bay community are specifically affected by this option due to the jetty being a significant local facility.  The community want the jetty restored.

9.5       The jetty is located within the takiwā of Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke (Rāpaki). The Iwi Management Plan identifies the potential for too many coastal structures in the harbour as an issue. Tāngata whenua have a particular interest in ensuring that structures in the coastal marine area do not affect mahinga kai resources and use of the bay for mahinga kai purposes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – We have an estimate of $3 million to repair the jetty. Full restoration would likely cost more than this.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $3,000 - $5,000 per annum, increasing over time

9.9       Funding source - Long Term Plan 2018-28

Legal Implications

9.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations

9.11    The coastal environment presents a number of physical constraints. Appropriate geotechnical and natural hazard investigations will be required to determine the design of the jetty including an assessment of foundation conditions, active coastal processes, sea level rise and seismicity.

Implementation

9.12    Implementation dependencies  - Funding availability

9.13    Implementation timeframe – Funding dependent

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The jetty is restored for community use.

9.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A high cost project that is not currently funded.

·   Ongoing maintenance costs that will increase over time.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the Governers Bay Jetty 2016

 

 

 

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

Kelly Hansen - Senior Recreation Planner

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

Jason Rivett - Finance Business Partner

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

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

Reference:

16/1058933

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

56

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 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

22 September 2016

 

Report from Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board  – 16 September 2016

 

10.    Simeon Park  - Deed of Lease Approval to Canterbury Playcentre Association

Reference:

16/1081433

Contact:

Faye Collins

Faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Recommend that the Council approve the granting of a lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated over an area of 1367 m2 being part of Simeon Park described as Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB138/79 and Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB143/38 at 178 Simeon Street for a lease term not to exceed 35 years less one day.  Subject to:

a.         The Canterbury Playcentre Association obtaining and meeting the conditions of all resource and building consents required to relocate the former Wainoni Playcentre building from Bickerton Reserve to Simeon Park, including all remedial work required to make good the Bickerton Reserve site.

b.         Relocation of playground equipment within Simeon Park to the satisfaction of the Head of Parks or his designate.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

 

2.  Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

The Community Board recommendation will be provided following the meeting on 16 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Simeon Park  - Deed of Lease Approval to Canterbury Playcentre Association

75

 

No.

Title

Page

a

BE1114 - Simeon Park - Addington Playcentre - Lease Plan 2016

81

b

Aerial View Simeon Park

82

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

        Simeon Park  - Deed of Lease Approval to Canterbury Playcentre Association

Reference:

16/596545

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 that the Council grant a ground lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association over part of Simeon Park to establish a new playcentre for the Addington area.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Canterbury Playcentre Association.

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 the 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 the Council approve the granting of a lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association Incorporated over an area of 1367 m2 being part of Simeon Park described as Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB138/79 and Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB143/38 at 178 Simeon Street for a lease term not to exceed 35 years less one day.  Subject to:

a.         The Canterbury Playcentre Association obtaining and meeting the conditions of all resource and building consents required to relocate the former Wainoni Playcentre building from Bickerton Reserve to Simeon Park, including all remedial work required to make good the Bickerton Reserve site.

b.         Relocation of playground equipment within Simeon Park to the satisfaction of the Head of Parks or his designate.

2.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.8 Identify and promote community facilities provided by third parties

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a new lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the lease request

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

Provision of early learning facilities by third parties which meets the Council’s Strong Community Outcomes:

·     People have a sense of connection and participate in their community.

·     People have strong social networks

·     Services are available locally within the urban areas

·     People have the information and skills to enable them to participate in society

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Reducing the available outdoor recreational space available at Simeon Park with the relocation of the playcentre building.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       The Addington Playcentre chapter was formed in 2010/2011 and has been based out of the Addington School hall one morning a week.  In 2016 the school required the hall back so that they could carry out their own repair programme.

5.2       Canterbury Playcentre Association (the “Association”) own the Wainoni Playcentre building currently sitting on Bickerton Reserve (Wainoni).  That residential area is red zoned and Playcentre ceased to operate the playcentre activities on this reserve following the earthquake events of 2010/11.

5.3       The Addington Playcentre chapter approached the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board asking for the Community Board’s support for a lease at Simeon Park so that a playcentre could be established next to Addington School. 

5.4       The building will be licenced for up to 25 children, currently they have 20 – 25 families enrolled and they are licenced by the Ministry of Education as a parent led early childhood services.

5.5       Sessions are currently one morning per week but it is anticipated that up to four sessions a week will be held, including running other services to help the parents and community such as support for new mums, training sessions for parents and staff and other use by its members fitting within the playcentre objectives.

The Land and Lease

5.6       The proposed lease area is contained within the land known as Simeon Park described as Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB138/79 and Part Rural Section 154 contained in Title CB143/38 at 178 Simeon Street.  It is a “park” in accordance with the definition given in section 138(2) of the Local Government Act 2002.

5.7       Community Boards have the delegated authority to enter into leases or licences on “park” or “non-reserve” land for the carrying on of any trade, business or occupation on parks for terms not exceeding five years and at rentals not exceeding $20,000.

5.8       As there is significant financial investment required by the Association, officers support a lease term of 35 years less one day, which is the maximum term of lease without triggering subdivision requirements under Section 281 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

5.9       The leased areas, as shown in Attachment A,  comprise Area A, B and C and are the proposed areas subject to an annual rental in accordance with the Councils policy for setting rent for sports groups and organisations occupying parks and reserves. Based on the current assessments the annual rental charged will be $249 plus GST. This is based on the building footprint of Area A and B being 157m2 and green space Area C being 645m2. Area D on the attached site plan of 565m2 is proposed to be non-chargeable as it may be needed for car parking under the Resource Consent requirements.  It has also been identified as an area having safety or CPTED concerns - basically an area where people can go unseen and hide behind trees near boundaries.  An aerial view of the Park is found in Attachment B.

5.10    The positioning of the building has been carefully considered with the Council’s Policy Advisor for Greenspace.  There are no other suitable locations within Simeon Park that can meet the needs of the Association.

5.11    Council will undertake the maintenance of Council owned trees within the Association’s leased area.

5.12    There are two items of playground equipment that impact on the proposed lease area and the Association will be required to relocate this equipment to an approved area and in accordance with the Council’s standards determined by the Head of Parks or his designate.

5.13    A lease will be entered into once the Association receives Resource Consent and Building Consent approval.  The Association will also be required to carry out appropriate testing as the site has been identified as a former tip and is registered as a HAIL site.

Advertising

5.14    Public advertising of the intention to grant a lease has been carried out in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act. Submissions closed on Friday 29th July 2016 and there were no submissions or objections received.                                                                     

6.   Option 1 – Grant a lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Grant a new lease to The Canterbury Play Centre Association for 35 years less a day.

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       Children and their families living in the catchment are specifically affected by this option due to their participation in the activities provided by the Association.  Their views are supportive of seeking a lease.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – preparation of Deed of Lease – costs to be met by the Association

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – costs to be met by the Association; maintenance of Council trees covered within operational budgets.

6.8       Funding source – not applicable to Council

Legal Implications

6.9       Granting of a new lease will be documented by way of a Deed of Lease to be prepared by the Council’s Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The risk in granting the lease for 35 years less a day is the Association may fold and cease to operate. To mitigate the risk, the lease will consist of two terms of 12 years and one term of
11 years less one day which provides an opportunity for the Lessees to determine any changes in the level of service they provide. The lease documentation will protect the Council’s interest on the Park and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by the  Council to grant the Lease

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Once resource consent and building consent have been obtained a lease can be drawn up.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

Provision of early learning facilities by third parties which meets the Council’s Strong Community Outcomes:

·     People have a sense of connection and participate in their community.

·     People have strong social networks

·     Services are available locally within the urban areas

·     People have the information and skills to enable them to participate in society

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reducing the available outdoor recreational space available at Simeon Park with the relocation of the playcentre building.

7.   Option 2 – Decline the lease request

Option Description

7.1       Decline the request for a new lease at Simeon Park.

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       Families of Addington Playcentre are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to provide a place for the Playcentre to establish themselves near Addington School.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – does not support Annual Plan Level of Service which sets out to identify and promote community facilities provided by a third party.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – contrary to Level of Service

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – change to Level of Service

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – there are no costs to the Council in not approving the lease. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the park is already maintained by the Council, not applicable

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       The lease with Canterbury Playcentre at Bickerton Reserve sets out the provisions for the removal of the building and improvements.  Not granting a lease at Simeon Park will have no change to current provisions for the Bickerton site.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    There is a risk to the Council’s reputation if a lease is not granted.  Supporters of the proposal are keen to see a new playcentre established and would see any non-approval of the lease as hindering the development of the community.

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:

·   An open space park maintained for the enjoyment of all residents.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not meeting the Council community outcomes and levels of service

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

BE1114 - Simeon Park - Addington Playcentre - Lease Plan 2016

 

b 

Aerial View Simeon Park

 

 

 

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

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

11.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Minutes - 6 September 2016

Reference:

16/1083693

Contact:

Faye Collins

faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5106

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 6 September 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 6 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board - 6 September 2016

84

 

 

Signatories

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board  – 5 September 2016

 

12.    Breezes Road - School Patrol at Haeata Community Campus

Reference:

16/1046787

Contact:

Michael Thomson

michael.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8950

 

 

 

 

1.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Consideration

 

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

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

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

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

 

3.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

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

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

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Breezes Road - School Patrol at Haeata Community Campus

91

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Breezes road school patrol at Haeata community campus attachment A

96

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Breezes Road - School Patrol at Haeata Community Campus

Reference:

16/925945

Contact:

Michael Thomson

Michael.thomson@ccc.govt.nz

941-8950

 

 

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 to approve a school patrol in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and accordance with the Land Transport Rule 54002, Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a request from the new Haeata school community and the working party involved in ensuring all traffic control and parking issues are considered as part of the new school opening in 2017.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of adjoining residents/ community directly affected.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendation

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

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install a school patrol (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Breezes Road.

·     Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified by staff

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Haeata Community Campus

5.1             The Ministry of Education is restructuring a number of schools in Christchurch City. As part of this restructure, four existing schools are merging into one school at the site of the existing Aranui High school.

The four schools that are merging are: Avondale Primary, Aranui Primary, Wainoni Primary, and Aranui High School.

A committee has been formed, chaired by a staff member from the New Zealand Transport Agency. The purpose of this technical committee is to look at all aspects of travel changes for school children, resulting from the merger. This includes looking at needed traffic control changes, parking restriction changes, travel patterns, school buses, effects on public transport, etc.

This report requesting approval for a school patrol is just one of many changes required.

Due to the Local Government elections, and consequential decision making meeting recess, further reports will be submitted in the new Council elected term.

These reports may include such items (depending on analysis after the restructure) as:

·     Changes to the variable speed limits (school speed zone) on Breezes Road at the Avondale /Chisnallwood site, and at the Aranui Primary /Aranui High school site.

·     Changes to the Breezes road crossing points at the Avondale /Chisnallwood site.

·     Reviewing the school bus stop on Shortland Street.

·     Assessing the consequential priority of Shortland Street for a school speed zone.

·     Better protection for pedestrians crossing at the Breezes /Wainoni Road and Breezes/ Pages Road intersection signals.

In addition, a citywide review of all school patrols will occur in 2017, following restructuring/ closure of many schools in the city. This will follow the format completed by the author of this report, back in 2002, when all school patrols were reviewed and legalised in one report to Council.

 

5.2      

6.   Option 1 – Install School Patrol (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install school patrol at Breezes road outside the new Haeata Community Campus.

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 nil. Note: the zebra pedestrian crossing exists, along with kerb extensions and parking restrictions.

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       No members of the community-outside the Haeata Community are specifically affected by this option due to no effect on any adjoining residents or road users. Note: Due to the existence of the zebra crossing, motorists are required to stop for pedestrians crossing. 

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 – approximately $2,500 for signs and poles

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – approved Council Maintenance budget

6.8       Funding source – approved Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.9       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

6.10    None identified.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - dependant on approval by Council to legalise the school patrol operation.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – required to be commissioned for the start of February 2017, for day one of Haeata Community Campus.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides supervision of school children crossing the roadway.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The Haeata School Community is specifically affected by this option due to their request to maximise safety for the children who need to cross Breezes road, on their way to/ from school. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Does not provide an additional facility for school children

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – as above.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - NA

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - NA

7.8       Funding source - NA

Legal Implications

7.9       NA

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Ongoing concern from the local community about road safety.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - NA

7.12    Implementation timeframe - NA

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council ( approx. $2,500)

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not respond to the needs of the school community.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Breezes road school patrol at Haeata community campus attachment A

 

 


 

 

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

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board  – 5 September 2016

 

13.    Shirley Tennis Club Variation to Lease

Reference:

16/1046818

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

 

 

1.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Shirley Tennis Club Variation to Lease

98

 

No.

Title

Page

a

BE671-LA4889-Shirley Tennis Club-Lease Plan 2016

104

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Shirley Tennis Club Variation to Lease

Reference:

16/846654

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

Lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

9418320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to recommend that Council approve a variation to the current lease area to Shirley Tennis Club Incorporated (the “Club”) at Richmond Park to allow construction of two additional tennis courts.

Origin of Report

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

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 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 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.1 Provide access to fit-for-purpose sports parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve a variation to the current lease to include an area to construct two new tennis courts (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – not approve a variation to the current lease.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Providing additional top grade tennis courts for future events hosted by the Club.

·     Provision of additional sporting facilities in the Eastern suburbs.

·     Utilisation of the area formerly occupied by the Shirley Bowling Club.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       The Shirley Tennis Club was seriously impacted from the earthquakes, losing all nine of the courts and their clubrooms. The Club had no insurance for the courts. The clubrooms were insured, but due to new foundation requirements they had a shortfall of $150,000 on the rebuild.

5.2       The Club numbers were on a steady climb before the earthquakes and then they dropped off after the 2010 earthquake. Since 2015 the club numbers are now increasing again with 325 members for 2016 which is up from 299 in 2014.

5.3       The Club has rebuilt new clubrooms and seven of the nine courts.  The remaining two courts (Area E in Attachment A) are at the back of the reserve in a shaded area that is hard to keep dry and the ground damage is quite extensive. 

5.4       The Club has applied to the Council for a lease of the land previously occupied by the Shirley Bowling Club which was previously surrendered. 

5.5       Utilisation of this area could potentially allow for night training and the Club has indicated that they intend to pursue permission for the installation of lighting to four of the courts, including these two new courts.  The report seeking approval for lighting will come before the Community Board at a later date.

5.6       The Tennis Club is surrounded mostly by red zone land. There is an easement in favour of two adjoining lots that wasn’t red zoned; one is residential and the other is a former hospital.  This easement runs between the current leased area and the proposed new area for the additional courts (shown in red in Attachment A).  Council officers approached the landowners for a surrender of the easement.  This did not eventuate and the area of the easement will now be sealed over and not built on as was previously done with the bowling club building and greens.

5.7       The remaining two back courts that are damaged will be retained by the Tennis Club.

5.8       The park previously had a public cricket batting practice area which was damaged by the earthquakes.  The local cricket club has expressed an interest in utilising this area for both public and club batting practice but are not in a position to apply for a lease at this stage.  If the cricket club wishes to pursue use of these redundant courts, a report seeking the surrender of these tennis courts will go before the Community Board.  

Delegations

5.9       The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board does not have delegated authority to vary a lease where there is a change in the amount of land the Lessee will occupy.

Public Advertising

5.10    The land is held as Recreation Reserve, and as such provisions 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 apply. The Christchurch City Council as administering authority must publicly advertise the proposal and consider any objections received in writing before making the decision to vary the lease over the area the Lessee is presently occupying.

5.11    The Council has publicly advertised the proposal to vary the lease. Submissions close on 12 September 2016.  If submissions are received, and submitters wish to be heard in support of their submission, it will be necessary to convene a Reserves Hearing Panel to hear submitters’ views prior to the panel making a recommendation back to the Council.

Minister of Conservation Delegations

5.12    On 12 June 2013, the Minster of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve.  These delegations cannot be sub-delegated to a Community Board level.

5.13    In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

·        The land has been correctly identified;

·        The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

·        The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

·        The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

·        Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

·        Council officers have publically notified the Council’s intentions to consider granting the Shirley Tennis Club a lease for 33 years.

·        Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease complies with the Minister’s requirements.

6.   Option 1 – Approve Variation to Lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve a variation to the current lease to include area to construct two new tennis courts

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       Club members and players of tennis are specifically affected by this option due to the need for tennis courts for adult and children’s interclub weekly sports and being able to host events.  Their views are in favour of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – staff time to prepare the report is budgeted for.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – nil.

6.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.9       A variation to the Deed of Lease to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Club will be responsible for the cost of preparation which is $250 plus GST plus the cost of public advertising.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The risk in granting the request is the Club may cease to operate. To mitigate the risk the lease states that the Club must remove all improvements and make good the land. The lease documentation will protect the Council’s interests and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by Council to vary the Lease

6.12    Implementation timeframe – Completion following Council resolution

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Providing additional top grade tennis courts for future events hosted by the Club.

·   Provision of additional sporting facilities in the Eastern suburbs.

·   Utilisation of the area formerly occupied by the Shirley Bowling Club.

 

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

7.   Option 2 - Not Approve a Variation to the Current Lease

Option Description

7.1       Not approve a variation to the current lease and leave everything as status quo.

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       The Club and its members are specifically affected by this option due to the need to have more courts to host events and keep up with current volumes of games in inter club competition.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – does not support Council’s Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025)

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – the LTP provides a level of service to deliver overall customer satisfaction with sports parks

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – changes to the LTP that would not support overall customer satisfaction with sports parks

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – No cost to Council

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Operational budgets for maintenance of reserve

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The Club has been working with staff for two years on the project which has also included elected members input, the risk of losing face with the community group would be high. Approval to grant the variation would mitigate this risk.

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:

·   Not having exclusive use by a sports club over area of Reserve

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Limiting the ability of the Club’s future expansion.

·   Lack of recreational facilities in the eastern suburbs for the playing of tennis including interclub competitions.

·   Ongoing maintenance of the reserve.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

BE671-LA4889-Shirley Tennis Club-Lease Plan 2016

 

 

 

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 and Community

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Burwood/Pegasus Community Board  – 5 September 2016

 

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

Reference:

16/1046864

Contact:

Nick Jenkins

nick.jenkins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5060

 

 

 

 

1.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Resolves to enter into a licence with the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust pursuant to section 54 of The Reserves Act 1977, for a period of up to 5 years, over that part of land described as being approximately 980 square meters at 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni, as depicted in attachment A, subject to:

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

Linda Stewart/Tim Baker                                                                                                 Carried

 

2.  Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

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

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

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

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

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

107

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Site Plan - 884 Avonside Drive

114

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

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

Reference:

16/945719

Contact:

Nick Jenkins

nick.jenkins@ccc.govt.nz

(03) 941 5060

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board to:

1.1.1   Approve the granting of a licence agreement to the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust, over part of 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni, for the purposes of establishing and operating a community garden.

1.1.2   Recommend that the Council exercise the Minister of Conservation’s delegated authority to approve a new licence to the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Burwood/Pegasus Community Board resolution BPCB/2016/00076.

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 officers completing an assessment of the significance.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board:

1.         Resolves to enter into a licence with the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust pursuant to section 54 of The Reserves Act 1977, for a period of up to 5 years, over that part of land described as being approximately 980 square meters at 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni, as depicted in attachment A, subject to:

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

It is further recommended that the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board recommend to Council:

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

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

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

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

 

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 - Grant a licence to the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Not grant a licence to Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports the outcomes of the Councils Food Resilience Policy.

·     Enhances the utilisation of Bickerton Reserve, until a future use of the adjoining residential red zoned land is known.

·     Creates a sense of communal activity, prosperity and purpose within the red zone.

·     Encourages community networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation in Christchurch.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Restricts Councils ability to use the land for an alternative purpose for the duration of the licence.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       On 20 June 2016 the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board received a deputation from the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust (WACST) seeking support toward a proposal to establish a community garden on part of Bickerton Reserve, 884 Avonside Drive, Wainoni.

5.2       The Community Board resolved to:

·   Support in principle the aims of the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust to develop a community garden on reserve land on Bickerton Reserve.

·   Request staff to undertake whatever actions are necessary to enable the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust to implement the community garden on that site as soon as possible with a deadline of the beginning of August 2016.

Community Board Considerations – Approval of Lease

5.3       The Community Board has the delegated authority to approve the granting of leases and licences over land administered by the Council as recreation reserve pursuant to section 54 of The Reserves Act 1977.

5.4       The subject land is held as a recreation reserve, and is administered under the Reserves Act 1977.

5.5       The site is legally described as being Res 4219 and Lot 1 DP 10020 held within certificates of title CB8k/349 and CB420/257 respectively, and totals 4882 square meters. The proposed licenced area comprises of approximately 980 square meters.

5.6       Council officers from the Park’s Unit are supportive of the proposed short term establishment and operation of a community garden, and have identified no alternative community uses for the site which should take priority.

5.7       The licence agreement is intended for the purpose of permitting WACST to establish and operate a community garden, on a short term basis, until the land tenure issues are resolved on the adjoining Crown owned red zoned land and a long term licence can be sought by the Trust.

5.8       The annual rental will be set at a peppercorn in line with other community garden leases throughout the city.

5.9       Granting a licence to WACST will help to support the implementation of the following visions as set out in the Council adopted Food Resilience Policy:

5.9.1   Identify and make available suitable Council land for food production, community gardens and related activities, and establish supportive frameworks that enable community use of these spaces.

5.9.2   Support community education through community gardens and other local initiatives that increase knowledge of how to grow, harvest, prepare and consume healthy locally grown food to support edible gardens and a thriving local food economy.

5.9.3   Support initiatives that increase the availability, distribution and affordability of fresh, healthy food in our communities.

 

Council Considerations - Approval of Lease (as a delegate of the Minister of Conservation)

5.10    On 12 June 2013, the Minister of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities his powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve. These delegations cannot be sub-delegated to a Community Board level.

5.11    In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

5.11.1 The land has been correctly identified;

5.11.2 The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

5.11.3 The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

5.11.4 The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

5.11.5 Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

5.12    Council officers have publically notified the Council's intentions to consider granting a licence agreement for a period of up to 5 years, for the establishment and operation of a community garden. The public notice was placed in The Press on 15 August 2016, with the notification period due to close at 12 noon on 16 September 2016.

5.13    If submissions are received, on or before the 16 September 2016 deadline, and submitters wish to be heard in support of their submission, it will be necessary to convene a Reserves Hearing Panel to hear submitters’ views prior to the panel making a recommendation back to the Council.

5.14    Council Officers are satisfied that the proposed lease complies with the Minister’s requirements.

 

6.   Option 1 - Grant a licence to the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To grant the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust a licence for a period of up to 5 years, for the establishment and operation of a community garden, over that area of land as depicted in attachment A.

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 the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust are specifically affected by this option due to their requirements for a vacant land parcel suitable for establishing a temporary community garden.  Their views support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - There is no cost to the Council other than staff time which is budgeted for. The Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust will be responsible for the cost of preparing the new deed which is $250 plus GST.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - The Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust will be responsible for any ongoing maintenance costs.

6.8       Funding source - The Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust have secured a grant of $30,000 from Red Cross. The funds must be spent by December 2016 or the grant will be forfeited.

Legal Implications

6.9       A licence agreement will need to be prepared to document the occupation arrangements.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    The Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust are relying on funding to establish the community garden. The Trust may not have sufficient funds at the expiry of the licence agreement to remove their site improvements. The Council could be left either carrying the cost of removal, or inheriting the Trust’s site improvements that we do not wish to retain.

6.11    The licence agreement will contain provisions requiring the Trust to remove its site improvements at the expiry of the licence.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies - Resolution by the Community Board.

6.13    Implementation timeframe - Approximately 3-4 weeks for the completion of licence agreement after a formal resolution by the Community Board.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports the outcomes of the Council’s Food Resilience Policy.

·   Enhances the utilisation of Bickerton Reserve, until a future use of the adjoining residential red zoned land is known.

·   Creates a sense of communal activity, prosperity and purpose within the red zone.

·   Encourages community networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation in Christchurch.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Restricts Council’s ability to use the land for an alternative purpose for the duration of the licence.

7.   Option 2 - Not grant a licence to Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust

Option Description

7.1       Decline the granting of a licence agreement to the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust.

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 of the Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust are specifically affected by this option due to their requirements for a vacant land parcel suitable for establishing a temporary community garden.  Their views would not support this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - Does not support the Councils Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025)

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - This option does not align with the levels of service provided for in the long term plan, including; “6.0.2 Customer satisfaction with a range of recreation facilities” and “7.0.3 Support community based organisations and networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation and sport in Christchurch”.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary - Not applicable.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - The Council will be responsible for any ongoing maintenance costs associated with the site.

7.8       Funding source - The cost of maintenance will continue to be met through existing Park’s Unit operational budgets.

Legal Implications

7.9       There are no legal implications in not granting a licence.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The Council’s reputation could be damaged if the Council were seen to be unsupportive of the Trust’s community garden proposal, which aligns closely with the objectives of the Council’s Food Resilience Policy.

7.11    Granting a licence to Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust will mitigate this risk.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Community Board resolution.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Immediate.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retaining vacant land available for alternative future uses.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Underutilisation of Council land.

·   Goes against the wishes of the local community.

·   Discourages community networks to develop, promote and deliver recreation in Christchurch.

·   Wainoni Avonside Community Services Trust risks losing its $30,000 grant from Red Cross if land tenure cannot be secured.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Site Plan - 884 Avonside Drive

 

 

 

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

Nick Jenkins - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

15.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 15 August 2016

Reference:

16/1046966

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Burwood/Pegasus 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 Burwood/Pegasus Community Board meeting held

15 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 15 August 2016

118

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

16.    Burwood/Pegasus Community Board Minutes - 5 September 2016

Reference:

16/1063198

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Burwood/Pegasus Community Board held a meeting on 5 September 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

5 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Burwood/Pegasus Community Board - 5 September 2016

126

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board  – 12 September 2016

 

17.    Riccarton Leagues Club - Variation of Lease on Crosbie Park

Reference:

16/1077648

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941-8320

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

1.         The Council grants a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club Incorporated over
Crosbie Park being Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11917 contained in Title CB34B/55 at
111 Withells Road, increasing the leased area by 167 metres squared to allow the Club to build changing rooms, bringing the total leased area to 515 metres squared as shown on the lease plan. Subject to:

a.         The applicant being required to have the position of the easement for the Council-owned sewer main confirmed by formal survey at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

b.         The applicant being required to locate and confirm the in-ground position of the Council-owned sewer main pipe at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

c.         The applicant and their contractors contacting Council’s Manager Reticulation and Maintenance prior to commencing any works on site.

and that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board:

2.         Approves, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, the removal of two Turkey Oak trees, as shown on the lease plan (Attachment A), with all costs to be met by the applicant.

3.         Recommends, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, to the Head of Parks that approval to relocate one existing sports-field lighting pole be granted subject to:

a.         The final position of the relocated pole being approved by the Head of Parks or their designate.

b.         The applicant obtaining (if required) any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at their cost, before commencing relocation of the lighting pole.

c.         The applicant, where applicable, being responsible for ensuring that they or the contractors they engage are responsible for obtaining plans of all services presently laid underground in the park (electricity, telephonic, sewerage, storm water, high pressure water supply and irrigation).

d.         The applicant being required to deposit scaled plans, showing the lighting poles and cable layout in the park, as built, within two months of the work being completed.

e.         The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, maintenance, and any future removals, of the lighting system.

f.          The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is maintained in a safe and tidy condition at all times.

g.         The applicant (where applicable) is to pay a bond of $2,000 to the Council via the Parks Advisor South before any construction work commences on the site.  The bond, less any expenses incurred by the Council, will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the development to a standard acceptable to the Head of Parks or their designate.

h.         This approval lapsing if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

4.         Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

2.  Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board resolved to:

2.         Approve, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, the removal of two Turkey Oak trees, as shown on the lease plan, with all costs to be met by the applicant.

3.         Recommend, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, to the Head of Parks that approval to relocate one existing sports-field lighting pole be granted subject to:

a.         The final position of the relocated pole being approved by the Head of Parks or their designate.

b.         The applicant obtaining (if required) any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at their cost, before commencing relocation of the lighting pole.

c.         The applicant, where applicable, being responsible for ensuring that they or the contractors they engage are responsible for obtaining plans of all services presently laid underground in the park (electricity, telephonic, sewerage, storm water, high pressure water supply and irrigation).

d.         The applicant being required to deposit scaled plans, showing the lighting poles and cable layout in the park, as built, within two months of the work being completed.

e.         The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, maintenance, and any future removals, of the lighting system.

f.          The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is maintained in a safe and tidy condition at all times.

g.         The applicant (where applicable) is to pay a bond of $2,000 to the Council via the Parks Advisor South before any construction work commences on the site.  The bond, less any expenses incurred by the Council, will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the development to a standard acceptable to the Head of Parks or their designate.

h.         This approval lapsing if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

4.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

5.       That the two Turkey Oaks are removed at the approximately $2,000 to the applicant and another four replacement trees are planted as mitigation in a location to be confirmed by the arborist at the cost of approximately $2,000 to the applicant.

 

3.  Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Decided FWCB/2016/00001

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Grants a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club Incorporated over
Crosbie Park being Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11917 contained in Title CB34B/55 at
111 Withells Road, increasing the leased area by 167 metres squared to allow the Club to build changing rooms, bringing the total leased area to 515 metres squared as shown on the lease plan. Subject to:

a.         The applicant being required to have the position of the easement for the Council-owned sewer main confirmed by formal survey at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

b.         The applicant being required to locate and confirm the in-ground position of the Council-owned sewer main pipe at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

c.         The applicant and their contractors contacting Council’s Manager Reticulation and Maintenance prior to commencing any works on site.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Riccarton Leagues Club - Variation of Lease on Crosbie Park

136

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Riccarton Leagues Club Lease Plan

144

b

Crosbie Park - Building elevations and site plan for Riccarton Leagues Club

145

c

Crosbie Park - Arboricultural Assessment

148

d

Crosbie Park - Aerial photo sketch

160

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Riccarton Leagues Club - Variation of Lease on Crosbie Park

Reference:

16/596612

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 Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board to recommend that the Council approves a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club Incorporated on
Crosbie Park to allow the Club to build changing rooms.

1.2       This report was originally presented to the Board on 29 August 2016.  The Board resolved that the report lie on the table to the next meeting on 12 September 2016 to enable relevant staff to attend to provide advice to the Board.

Origin of Report         

1.3       This report is staff generated at the request of the Club.

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 officers completing an assessment of the significance.

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 to the Council that:

1.         The Council grants a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club Incorporated over
Crosbie Park being Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11917 contained in Title CB34B/55 at
111 Withells Road, increasing the leased area by 167 metres squared to allow the Club to build changing rooms, bringing the total leased area to 515 metres squared as shown on the lease plan. Subject to:

a.         The applicant being required to have the position of the easement for the Council-owned sewer main confirmed by formal survey at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

b.         The applicant being required to locate and confirm the in-ground position of the Council-owned sewer main pipe at their cost prior to commencing any works on site.

c.         The applicant and their contractors contacting Council’s Manager Reticulation and Maintenance prior to commencing any works on site.

and that the Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board:

2.         Approves, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, the removal of two Turkey Oak trees, as shown on the lease plan (Attachment A), with all costs to be met by the applicant.

3.         Recommends, subject to the granting of the variation to the lease, to the Head of Parks that approval to relocate one existing sports-field lighting pole be granted subject to:

a.         The final position of the relocated pole being approved by the Head of Parks or their designate.

b.         The applicant obtaining (if required) any necessary resource consents, and building consents, at their cost, before commencing relocation of the lighting pole.

c.         The applicant, where applicable, being responsible for ensuring that they or the contractors they engage are responsible for obtaining plans of all services presently laid underground in the park (electricity, telephonic, sewerage, storm water, high pressure water supply and irrigation).

d.         The applicant being required to deposit scaled plans, showing the lighting poles and cable layout in the park, as built, within two months of the work being completed.

e.         The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, insurance, maintenance, and any future removals, of the lighting system.

f.          The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is maintained in a safe and tidy condition at all times.

g.         The applicant (where applicable) is to pay a bond of $2,000 to the Council via the Parks Advisor South before any construction work commences on the site.  The bond, less any expenses incurred by the Council, will be refunded to the payee upon completion of the development to a standard acceptable to the Head of Parks or their designate.

h.         This approval lapsing if the development is not completed within two years of the approval date.

4.         Authorises the Property Consultancy Manager to conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the lease.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.1 Provide access to fit-for-purpose sports parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Vary the Lease to allow changing rooms to be built on Crosbie Park in the location requested by the Club (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Not vary the Lease to allow a new building on Crosbie Park.

·     Option 3 – Vary the Lease to allow changing rooms to be built on Crosbie Park in a different location to that requested by the Club.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Having better facilities for organised sport on Crosbie Park.

·     No cost to Council for the building of changing rooms on Crosbie Park.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Having additional buildings on the park.

·     Earlier removal of the two Turkey Oak trees than would have been anticipated.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       A lease to Riccarton Leagues Club Incorporated (the “Club”) was granted in 1977.  The Club also includes the playing of softball and touch with over 300 members.

5.2       The Club first asked in 2012 if more changing rooms could be built by the Council as there are two full fields at Crosbie Park and at times there may be four games happening at the same time with only one set of changing rooms in their building.

5.3       The Club then proposed to construct a staged extension to their existing two-storey building which would include the desired additional changing rooms.

5.4       The Club then decided to instead construct a separate changing rooms building adjacent to their existing building and outside of their leased area.  Building plans were drawn up and the Club applied for, and was granted, resource consent (RMA92028614) for the new building.  The Club mistakenly believed that the resource consent application process included the approval of the variation of their lease.

5.5       Staff are of the view that the separate changing rooms building is an acceptable alternative to the original proposal. A site plan and building elevation drawings are shown in Attachment B.

Public Advertising

5.6       The land is held as Fee Simple and in accordance with the requirements of section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council must give public notice that consideration is being given to granting a variation to the current lease to increase the leased area to permit the Club to build additional changing rooms with shower and toilet facilities and storage rooms.

5.7       The Council has publicly advertised the proposal to vary the lease.  The submission period closed on Wednesday 3 August 2016 and no submissions were received.

Tree Removal and Light Relocation

5.8       The construction of the proposed new building and associated infrastructure will impact on a number of park trees in the immediate vicinity, and on one sports field lighting pole owned by the Club.

5.9       The new building will necessitate the removal of two mature Turkey Oak trees (Quercus cerris) that are within the proposed additional lease area (shown on the lease plan in Attachment A, and labelled as T3 and T4 in Appendix A of the Arboricultural Assessment in Attachment C).

5.10    The Council’s Arborist had identified prior to this lease application being made that these two Turkey Oaks would eventually be compromised by their proximity to the existing two-storey building.  As the Turkey Oaks have currently been assessed as still being in good overall condition, the approval of the Community Board is required for their removal.  The proposed removal of these trees has been included in the public advertisement referred to in paragraph 5.7 of this report.

5.11    The Council’s Arborist has recommended that these two trees are removed at the cost of approximately $2,000 to the applicant, and another two replacement trees are planted as mitigation in a location to be confirmed by the Arborist at a cost of approximately $1,000 to the applicant.   

5.12    Two Scarlet Oak trees (Quercus coccinea) were planted to the west of the Turkey Oaks to mitigate the effects of their eventual removal some years hence, and are now semi-mature.  These trees may also be adversely affected by the proposed new building.  The Arborist has recommended that at least one of these trees be transplanted, with final number and position to be determined by the Arborist upon confirmation of the final extent of the works, at a cost of approximately $2,000 (including establishment maintenance) to the applicant.

5.13    The Arborist also advises that any works within the vicinity (drip-line) of the remaining trees will require site protection and tree monitoring over the construction period at a cost of approximately $1,000 to the applicant.

5.14    The new building will also necessitate the relocation approximately 3 metres eastward of one existing sports-field lighting pole owned by the Club. 

 

6.   Option 1 – Grant a variation to the lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       That the Council grant a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club located at Crosbie Park being Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11917 on Title CB34B/55 for an extra 167 square metres approximately to build changing rooms.

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 the Club and players of the park are specifically affected by this option due to the need for extra changing facilities when there are up to 8 sports teams at one time using the park and only one set of changing rooms available.  Their views are supportive of this request.

6.5       No submissions were received from the community following public advertising of the proposed lease.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – Staff time to prepare the report is budgeted for. All other costs of the new building are to be met by the Club. 

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil. All costs are being met by the Club.

6.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.10    A variation to the Deed of Lease to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Club will be responsible for the costs to change it which is $250 + GST.

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    The risk in granting the request is the Club may cease to operate. To mitigate the risk the lease states that the Club must remove all structures and make good the land. The lease documentation will protect the Councils interests and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

6.12    There is further risk to the Council’s reputation acting as landowner in considering the request as the Club have already received Resource Consent through the regulatory process.  To mitigate this risk the Club should have obtained landowner consent in the first instance prior to proceeding with obtaining the resource consent.  The Council as landowner must now consider this request retrospectively.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Approval by Council to vary the Lease.

6.14    Implementation timeframe - Completion following Council resolution.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Having better facilities for organised sport on Crosbie Park.

·   No cost to Council for the building of changing rooms on Crosbie Park.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Having an additional building on the park.

·   Earlier removal of the two Turkey Oak trees than would have been anticipated.

7.   Option 2 – Not vary the Lease to allow a new building on Crosbie Park

Option Description

7.1       Not approve a variation to the Lease for Riccarton Leagues Club to build new changing rooms.

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 of the Riccarton Leagues Club and other players of Crosbie Park are specifically adversely affected by this option due to the current shortage of changing facilities at Crosbie Park.  Their views are not in support of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – does not support Council’s Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025).

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – the LTP provides for residents’ access to fit-for-purpose recreation and sporting facilities.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – changes to the Long Term Plan that would not support the provision of access to fit-for-purpose recreation and sporting facilities.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – solely on the club as they have obtained resource consent to build the changing rooms.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

7.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    There is a risk to the Council’s reputation acting as landowner in denying the request as the Club have already received Resource Consent through the regulatory process.  To mitigate this risk the Council must now consider the request retrospectively.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Council resolution.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Not having an additional built structure on a Park.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not having enough facilities for players to get changed in.

·   Costs to Council to provide new facilities on the park.

·   Financial loss to the Club as a result of costs incurred in preparing building plans and obtaining resource consent.

8.   Option 3 – Vary the Lease to allow changing rooms to be built on Crosbie Park in a different location to that requested by the Club

Option Description

8.1       That the Council grant a variation to the lease for Riccarton Leagues Club located at Crosbie Park being Part Lot 2 Deposited Plan 11917 on Title CB34B/55 for an extra 167 square metres approximately to build changing rooms, but in a different location to that requested by the Club.

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 of the Club and players on the park are specifically affected by this option due to the need for extra changing facilities when there are up to 8 sports teams at one time using the park and only one set of changing rooms available.  Alternative locations for the new building were discussed but are not supported by the Club or staff.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.6       Cost of Implementation – Staff time to prepare the report is budgeted for. All other costs of the new building are to be met by the Club. 

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil. All costs are being met by the Club.

8.8       Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.9       A variation to the Deed of Lease to document the arrangement will be prepared. The Club will be responsible for the costs to change it which is $250 + GST.

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    The risk in granting the request is the Club may cease to operate.  To mitigate the risk the lease states that the Club must remove all structures and make good the land.  The lease documentation will protect the Councils interests and provide measures for dealing with early termination or abandonment.

8.11    There is further risk to the Council’s reputation acting as landowner in considering the request as the Club have already received Resource Consent for the location in Option 1 through the regulatory process.  The Club would need to either obtain a variation to their resource consent, or a new resource consent, at additional costs to the Club.  To mitigate this risk the Club should have obtained landowner consent in the first instance prior to proceeding with obtaining the resource consent.  The Council as landowner must now consider this request retrospectively.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies - Approval by the Council to vary the Lease.

8.13    Implementation timeframe - Completion following the Council’s resolution.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Having better facilities for organised sport on Crosbie Park.

·   No cost to Council for the building of changing rooms on Crosbie Park.

·   A temporary reprieve for the two Turkey Oak trees. Although their immediate removal would not be required, their removal would eventually be necessary in the future.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Having an additional building on the park.

·   The new changing rooms need to be in close proximity to the existing Club building.  The only feasible alternative location for the building would be to the north side of the existing Club building, because there is a sealed car-park to the west, and sports-fields in close proximity to the east and south, all of which would be directly compromised by a new building.  (Refer to aerial photo sketch in Attachment D).

·   In this northern location, there would be limited space between the building and the boundary fence of the park, thus creating hidden areas that do not meet the Council’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles.

·   The proposed building would require the realignment and/or relocation of the existing pedestrian pathway through the park which is likely to compromise user safety and not achieve compliance with CPTED principles.

·   The neighbouring houses are located very close to this northern boundary fence, and it is considered that their amenity would be adversely affected by a new building in this location.

·   The proposed new building would not be able to achieve the minimum 10 metre internal boundary setback required under the City Plan, therefore would have an additional non-compliance with the rules of the City Plan.

·   The Club would need to obtain a variation to their current resource consent, or a new resource consent, and potentially alter their building designs, all at additional cost to the Club.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Riccarton Leagues Club Lease Plan

 

b 

Crosbie Park - Building elevations and site plan for Riccarton Leagues Club

 

c 

Crosbie Park - Arboricultural Assessment

 

d 

Crosbie Park - Aerial photo sketch

 

 

 

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

Lisa Barwood - Leasing Consultant

Joanne Walton - Policy Advisor, Greenspace

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

18.    Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board Minutes - 12 September 2016

Reference:

16/1052337

Contact:

Edwina Cordwell

edwina.cordwell@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-6728

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board held a meeting on 12 September 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 12 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Fendalton/Waimairi Community Board - 12 September 2016

162

 

 

Signatories

Author

Edwina Cordwell - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board  – 16 August 2016

 

19.    Proposed Speed Limit Changes Hagley / Ferrymead Ward

Reference:

16/1049429

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

 

 

1.  Hagley/Ferrymead 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.c and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road from a point measured 300 metres southerly, generally from Moncks Spur Road to Summit Road. 

b.         Approve that the speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Main Road and extending in a southerly direction, generally, to a point 50 metres south of its intersection with Upper Major Hornbrook Road.

c.         Approve that the speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a northerly direction, generally, to a point 50 metres south of its intersection with Upper Major Hornbrook Road. 

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

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Hagley / Ferrymead Ward

174

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Mount Pleasant Road Proposed 50/70 Speed Limit Change Point Relocation

179

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Proposed Speed Limit Changes Hagley / Ferrymead Ward

Reference:

16/698122

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 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board’s recommendation that Council approves a change to the 50 / 70km/h speed limit change point on Mount Pleasant Road. 

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 Hagley/Ferrymead 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.c and include the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits & Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road from a point measured 300 metres southerly, generally from Moncks Spur Road to Summit Road. 

b.         Approve that the speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road be set at 50 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Main Road and extending in a southerly direction, generally, to a point 50 metres south of its intersection with Upper Major Hornbrook Road. 

c.         Approve that the speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road be set at 70 kilometres per hour commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a northerly direction, generally, to a point 50 metres south of its intersection with Upper Major Hornbrook Road.  

2.         Approve that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1.a to 1.c come into force on 31 August 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 limit change point on Mount Pleasant Road

·     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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

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 three changes to streets within the Hagley / Ferrymead ward, as listed below:

·   Mount Pleasant Road – proposed relocation of 50 / 70km/h change point, as indicated on Attachment A.

·   St Asaph Street – proposed 30km/h limit from Madras Street to Hagley Avenue

·   Hagley Avenue – proposed 30km/h speed limit from St Asaph Street to Riccarton Avenue

5.3       It is noted that this report only relates to the speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road because there is no delegated authority for traffic matters to the Hagley / Ferrymead Community Board for the area of the CBD identified on Plan A of the Delegations Register, which includes St Asaph Street and Hagley Avenue. 

5.4       A separate report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends the retention of the 50km/h speed limit of St Asaph Street and Hagley Avenue, principally as a result of the strong consultation response opposing any change. (See Attachment B)

5.5       Due to ongoing development, the urban/rural boundary of Mount Pleasant Road is effectively at its intersection with Upper Major Hornbrook Road at present. It is proposed to change the speed limit to reflect the current speed environment. The nature of the road geometry does not support speeds above 50kph.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Relocate the 50 / 70km/h speed limit of Mount Pleasant Road

Option Description

There is ongoing residential development at the southern end of Mount Pleasant Road.    The speed limit review consultation document proposed to relocate the 50 / 70km/h change point by some 300 metres to more accurately reflect the urban / rural boundary.   It is noted that this change reflects the current location of the speed limit signage, but not the change point as listed on the Register of Speed Limits.    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       A consultation leaflet was posted or hand delivered to 1500 properties 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 provided feedback on the 31 proposals city-wide.

6.6       Twelve submitters, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, supported the speed limit change to Mt Pleasant Road.  No submissions opposing the change were received. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

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

6.10    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    None identified

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies – Council approval.

6.17    Implementation timeframe – Two weeks following Council approval to allow notification of the NZ Transport Agency. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   The speed limit is set at a level that is appropriate for the nature of the road

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing speed limit of Mount Pleasant 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 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 – Approximately $300 to relocate signage. 

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

7.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.11 to 6.14. 

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:

·   Promote speeds that are inappropriate for the street environment

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Mount Pleasant Road Proposed 50/70 Speed Limit Change Point Relocation

 

 

 

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

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

20.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 16 August 2016

Reference:

16/1049385

Contact:

Barbara Strang

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Hagley/Ferrymead 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 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held

16 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 16 August 2016

182

 

 

Signatories

Author

Barbara Strang - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

21.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Minutes - 6 September 2016

Reference:

16/1056769

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board held a meeting on 6 September 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

6 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board - 6 September 2016

192

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

22.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Minutes - 30 August 2016

Reference:

16/1032678

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5008

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board held a meeting on 30 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

30 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 30 August 2016

202

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Riccarton/Wigram Community Board  – 13 September 2016

 

23.    Te Hapua Halswell Centre Cafe - New Lease and Surrender

Reference:

16/1087804

Contact:

Luke Rees-Thomas

luke.reesthomas@ccc.govt.nz

  941 8504

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Appoint Xin Ding Yi Limited as the preferred supplier for the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café tenancy.

2.         Approve the granting of a lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited over premises contained within Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889), under section 54 (1) (d) of the Reserves Act 1977, on terms as specified within this report.

3.         Recommend that the Council exercise the powers of the Minister of Conservation referred to in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977 and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013, that pertain to granting a lease under section 54 (1) (d) and consent to the granting of a Deed of Lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited for a period of nine years over part of Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889).

4.         Recommend that the Council approve the full surrender of the current lease held by The Woodward Group Limited trading as “Wishbone”, effective from a date negotiated by Council staff to coincide with the commencement of the new lease granted in Recommendation 2 above.

5.         Recommend that the Council grant delegated authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude all necessary lease negotiations and documentation with respect to Recommendations 2 and 4 above.

 

2.  Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

1.         Appoint Xin Ding Yi Limited as the preferred supplier for the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café tenancy.

2.         Approve the granting of a lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited over premises contained within Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889), under section 54 (1) (d) of the Reserves Act 1977, on terms as specified within the staff report.

 


 

 

3.  Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Exercise the powers of the Minister of Conservation referred to in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977 and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013, that pertain to granting a lease under section 54 (1) (d) and consent to the granting of a Deed of Lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited for a period of nine years over part of Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889).

2.         Approve the full surrender of the current lease held by The Woodward Group Limited trading as “Wishbone”, effective from a date negotiated by Council staff to coincide with the commencement of the new lease granted in Recommendation 2 above.

3.         Grant delegated authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude all necessary lease negotiations and documentation with respect to Recommendations 2 and 4 above.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Te Hapua Halswell Centre Cafe - New Lease and Surrender

209

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Te Hapua Halswell Centre - Cafe Lease Plan

217

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Te Hapua Halswell Centre Cafe - New Lease and Surrender

Reference:

16/889630

Contact:

Luke Rees-Thomas

luke.reesthomas@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8504

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The primary purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve a new lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited over café premises at the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre.

1.2       The second purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to recommend that the Council exercise the delegation granted by the Minister of Conservation to approve a new lease over reserve land to Xin Ding Yi Limited.

1.3       The third purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to recommend that the Council approve a surrender of the current lease held by ‘The Woodward Group Limited trading as Wishbone’.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated and originates from an open request for proposals process, in which Council staff sought to locate a new operator for the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by completing the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy Worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Appoint Xin Ding Yi Limited as the preferred supplier for the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café tenancy.

2.         Approve the granting of a lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited over premises contained within Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889), under section 54 (1) (d) of the Reserves Act 1977, on terms as specified within this report.

3.         Recommend that the Council exercise the powers of the Minister of Conservation referred to in the First Schedule of the Reserves Act 1977 and Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013, that pertain to granting a lease under section 54 (1) (d) and consent to the granting of a Deed of Lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited for a period of nine years over part of Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889).

4.         Recommend that the Council approve the full surrender of the current lease held by The Woodward Group Limited trading as “Wishbone”, effective from a date negotiated by Council staff to coincide with the commencement of the new lease granted in Recommendation 2 above.

5.         Recommend that the Council grant delegated authority to the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude all necessary lease negotiations and documentation with respect to Recommendations 2 and 4 above.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1 Provide community facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve new lease and surrender of existing lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not approve new lease and surrender of existing lease

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The facility (and patrons) will benefit from a new offering at the café.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The café will incur downtime between tenancies in order to facilitate handover and fit-out works, approximately 1to2 weeks.

 

5.   Context/Background

Facility Opening and Existing Café Lease

1.1       Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre

·   The Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre is located at 339 Halswell Road, within Section 1 SO Plan 494103 (Certificate of Title Identifier 740889). The land is classified as Local Purpose (Community Buildings) Reserve and administered under the Reserves Act 1977.

·   The new facility opened in December 2015 and was instantly popular with patrons. The exterior pools provided a major draw card in the summer months.

·   Located centrally within the facility is the café which has the ability to serve three different zones at any one time - Café dining (internal and external seating), the library facility and an external window used during summer months to serve ice creams and drinks to the pool area (refer Attachment A).

·   During early 2015, Council staff ran an open Request for Proposals Process (RFP) in order to source an operator for the new café prior to the facility opening. The Council received two responses.

·   Following weighted attribute scoring by the Council’s Evaluation Panel, a preferred respondent was recommended in the form of ‘The Woodward Group trading as Wishbone’.

·   The Community Board adopted the recommendation in 2015 and the Council resolved the required Minister of Conservation’s consent for a nine year lease to proceed.

·   ‘Wishbone’ completed their fit-out and the café opened in conjunction with the rest of the facility in December 2015.

·   Since store opening, the tenant has endured a challenging period based on a number of circumstances which have resulted in community feedback and media articles.

·   Representatives from ‘The Woodward Group’ approached Council staff in May 2016 with a reluctant request for the Landlord to source a replacement café operator.

·   The Tenant’s request at this point in the lease term is rare, however the Council was willing to re-test the market now that the facility is open.

·   Staff have completed the tenant sourcing process and now present the result with a staff recommendation.

Sourcing of New Operator and Lease Requirements

5.2       Request for Proposals (RFP) Process

·   Staff proceeded to compile an RFP document in order to source a new operator for the café.

·   The RFP document outlined the Council’s vision for the cafe business, which includes an operator who can provide the following goods and services:

·     A quality cafe business including (but not limited to) the service of ice creams, fresh sandwiches, toasted sandwiches, cakes, cold drinks, hot drinks, barista coffee.

 

·   The RFP document built on the original 2015 iteration including several revisions based on recent feedback, for example:

·     Adjusted the evaluation percentage  weightings to reflect a higher emphasis on customer and community engagement

·     Added response criteria to seek detail from applicants regarding customer and community engagement

·     Added response criteria to seek detail from applicants regarding origin and current operating location(s)

·     Removed the rental component from evaluation weightings to create a level playing field for applicants

·     Adjusted the required lease rental to be market rates and percentage rent based on sales

 

·   The café lease opportunity was advertised on several dates commencing on 22 June 2016 in The Press, Christchurch Star and the Council’s procurement websites.

·   Proactive communications were coordinated towards elected members, media and community groups in order to promote the lease opportunity.

·   The RFP process remained open for six (6) weeks and closed on 3 August 2016.

·   At the date of closure, two (2) responses were received.

·   Following assessment and scoring of the responses, the Council’s evaluation panel has determined ‘Xin Ding Yi Limited’ as the preferred Respondent for the new lease.

·   Xin Ding Yi Limited (currently trading as ‘Café RED’) operate the café at Upper Riccarton Library. These local owner operators provided a thorough and well thought out proposal including:

·     Sufficient café ownership experience and positive trading history.

·     Demonstrated expertise in providing a personable service to customers.

·     A detailed and realistic business plan for this lease including market research.

·     Included a series of proactive initiatives aimed at re-engaging the local community towards the café.

·     Propose investment including a remodelling of the interior décor and layout of the café workstation.

·     A high quality, diverse and affordable menu.

·     A motivated, positive attitude and willing to work with the Council to achieve success.

 

·   The evaluation panel are confident in the ability of ‘Xin Ding Yi Limited’ to carry out their proposed methodology and to provide a successful and welcoming community café for patrons of the facility.

·   The Council has an ongoing requirement to achieve a rental return from their commercial premises; whilst also ensuring the provision of services are obtained in a contestable manner, consistent with the Council’s Procurement Policy and Office of the Auditor General: Procurement Guidance for Public Entities.

·   The Council’s current Procurement Policy was adopted in 2012 with the next review scheduled for 2017. Under the current policy, the Council must ensure that local suppliers are given a full and fair opportunity to apply for any prospective lease. Council staff have only advertised in local media both in this RFP instance and the original run in 2015.

5.3       Lease Terms

·   The proposed lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited includes an initial term of five (5) years and two rights of renewal for two (2) years each (being nine (9) years in total).

·   The lease area totals 114m2 (café 19m2, interior dining 45m2, exterior dining 50m2)

·   Lease rental is based on market evidence received and will be calculated as the greater of the following two methods:

a)    Base rental = Market rent

b)    Percentage Rent = percentage  of turnover + GST (annual gross sales)

·   The base rental is reviewed every two (2) years to market conditions.

5.4       Existing Operator Lease Surrender and Handover:

·   In conjunction with the new lease provision detailed above, the existing lease held by ‘The Woodward Group’ is current to November 2018 and needs to be surrendered in full.

·   The Community Board do not hold a delegation to surrender leases over reserve land and must make a recommendation for the Council to resolve this action.

·   Council staff recommend this lease be surrendered and see no benefit to forcing an assignment of their current lease, given the remaining tenure.

·   Should the Community Board elect not to grant a new lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited, it is likely the exiting tenant will pursue other avenues in order to remove themselves from the lease cost e.g. the tenant may source a replacement operator themselves. The Council will be unable to unreasonably withhold landlord’s consent for this lease assignment.

·   A suitable handover date will need to be mediated (by Council staff) between the outgoing and incoming tenants, in order to minimise downtime for the café. Downtime is anticipated to be approximately one to two weeks.

·   It is proposed for the new operator to be operational prior to the opening of the exterior pools in early November 2016.

5.5       Delegations

·   The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to authorise the granting of the proposed lease under the current Delegation Register, Section 5.7 – Granting of leases or licences on reserves pursuant to section 54, 56, 58A, 61, 73 and 74 of the Reserves Act 1977.

·   On 12 June 2013 the Minister of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities his powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve.  In exercising the delegation provided by the Minister, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

4.8.1   The land has been correctly identified;

4.8.2   The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

4.8.3   The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

4.8.4   The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

4.8.5   Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

 

·   Council officers have considered the Council’s obligations and determined that the compliance with these requirements has been met.

·   The Council holds delegation to approve a surrender of the current lease held by ‘The Woodward Group trading as Wishbone’.

6.   Option 1 – Approve new lease and surrender of existing lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Community Board will resolve to;

6.1.1   Exercise the Board’s delegation and approve a new lease to Xin Ding Yi Limited on terms as detailed in section 5.3.

6.1.2   Recommend that the Council exercise its delegation on behalf of the Minister of Conservation and approve a new lease over the reserve land in question.

6.1.3   Recommend that the Council approve a full surrender of the current lease to ‘The Woodward Group trading as Wishbone’.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium and consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met under Section 54 (2a) (b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

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       Patrons of the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre facility are affected by this option due to the change of café operator.  Their views have been considered during the original facility notification process and facility feedback gathering exercises.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – Staff time and lease documentation

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Nil

6.8       Funding source – Existing budgets

Legal Implications

6.9       The Council will be required to facilitate new lease and surrender documentation.

Risks and Mitigations

6.10    Although the preferred Respondent is an experienced operator, this is a new venture which carries risk. The nature of the facility provides seasonal turnover fluctuations, how the operator can normalise income levels over the quieter months will be a factor.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - Subject to Community Board and Council resolutions, documentation completion and site handover mediation.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – three (3) months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The facility (and patrons) will benefit from a new operator offering at the café.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The café will incur downtime between tenancies in order to facilitate handover and fit-out works, approximately one to two weeks.

7.   Option 2 – Do not approve new lease and surrender of existing lease

Option Description

7.1       The Community Board will elect not to approve a new lease of the café premises to Xin Ding Yi Limited and will decline the request of The Woodward Group trading as Wishbone to surrender its lease.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium and consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required as no action is being taken.

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 patrons of the Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre facility are specifically affected by this option due to the core service provided by the café operation.  Their views are not required as no action is to be taken.

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 - Nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Allowing the status quo to continue will not benefit the café premises or users of the facility. The feedback received has indicated that a new approach to the café operation is preferred by the general public.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The café will not receive any new approach and the status quo will remain.

·   The existing Lessee may source an additional lease assignee that is not preferable to the Council.

·   The Council as landlord, cannot unreasonably withhold consent for a lease assignment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Te Hapua Halswell Centre - Cafe 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

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

24.    Audit and Risk Management Committee Minutes - 23 August 2016

Reference:

16/1089768

Contact:

Margaret Henderson

margaret.henderson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8185

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Audit and Risk Management Committee held a meeting on 23 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 Audit and Risk Management Committee meeting held 23 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Audit and Risk Management Committee - 23 August 2016

222

 

 

Signatories

Author

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

25.    Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee Minutes - 30 August 2016

Reference:

16/1086092

Contact:

Kevin Roche

kevin.roche@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee held a meeting on 30 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 Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee meeting held 30 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Chief Executive and Employment Matters Committee - 30 August 2016

226

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Kevin Roche - Committee Secretary

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 1 September 2016

 

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

Reference:

16/1039218

Contact:

Richie Moyle

richie.moyle@ccc.govt.nz

027 499 5592

 

 

 

 

1.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the report and acknowledged Mr Gerald Edmonds who attended the meeting, the great great grandson of T J Edmonds.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

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

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

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

 

3.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Endorse staff to proceed with the reconstruction and rebuild of the Band Rotunda as per option 4:

a.         To reconstruct and rebuild the band rotunda to function as its original purpose, with retractable glazing as its preferred option, and Council notes there may be an additional funding requirement of approximately $115,000.

 

2.         Agrees that if a consent approval is not forthcoming then the Council’s default position is option 1.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda - Options for Repair and Strengthening

231

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Edmond Band Rotunda CHED Report - Option 3 - mark ups

239

b  

PX attachment - Confidential

 

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Thomas Edmonds Band Rotunda - Options for Repair and Strengthening

Reference:

16/192421

Contact:

Richie Moyle

richie.moyle@ccc.govt.nz

027 499 5592

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report                                                             

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

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

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

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

 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

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

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

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

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     To return this famous icon to its original purpose.

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

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

·     The only Heritage value will be the Dome roof.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

 

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

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

 

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

 

Earthquake Damage

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

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.3       The community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

6.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – to be determined.

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

Legal Implications

6.8       N/A.

Risks and Mitigations

6.9       N/A.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies – nil.

6.11    Implementation timeframe – Target completion early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

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

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $130,000 estimate for removal and storage.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – N/A.

7.8       Funding source - Heritage Rebuild Programme Budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – By the end of 2016.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Significant cost saving.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The loss of a significant icon to the city.

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.4       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

8.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – to be determined.

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

Legal Implications

8.9       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

8.12    Implementation timeframe – Early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

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

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Ōtākaro Orchards Café (227 Cambridge Terrace)

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

Margaret Mahy Family Playground concessions

Oxford on Avon Pavilion (798 Colombo Street)

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

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

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.4       The Community has not been consulted at this stage.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

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

Legal Implications

9.8       N/A

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

9.10    Implementation dependencies  - N/A.

9.11    Implementation timeframe – Early 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.12    The advantages of this option include:

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

9.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Edmond Band Rotunda CHED Report - Option 3 - mark ups

 

b 

PX attachment - Confidential

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Richie Moyle - Programme Manager, Heritage Facilities Rebuild

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

22 September 2016

 

Report from Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee  – 1 September 2016

 

27.    Proposed Council Housing Policy

Reference:

16/1039692

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

 

 

1.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Consideration

 

1.      Legal advice was sought and received regarding whether there was a conflict of interest for the Committee members who were also on the Otautahi Community Housing Trust, who made a submission on the Proposed Council Housing Policy.  The advice noted there was unlikely to be a conflict of interest in this case, but this was something for each Committee member to consider for themselves at this Committee, and more relevantly, when the Council makes the final decision.

2.      The Committee requested that Attachment B Recommended Housing Policy contains a list of tracked changes when it is presented to Council.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

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

 

3.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee:

1.         Recommend that staff reprioritise “Investigate measures such as inclusionary zoning as a means to support social and affordable housing outcomes” from medium to high priority.

Councillors Lonsdale, Jones and Livingstone voted against

Councillor Buck abstained

 


 

 

4.  Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Committee Decided CHED/2016/00001

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the Christchurch City Council Housing Policy to take effect from 1 October 2016, incorporating the changes made to the Policy as a result of public feedback, as shown in Attachment B “Recommended Housing Policy”.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed Council Housing Policy

245

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment One - Draft Housing Policy Submissions

252

b

Attachment Two - Recommended Housing Policy

350

 

 


Council

22 September 2016

 

 

Proposed Council Housing Policy

Reference:

16/946956

Contact:

Paul Cottam

paul.cottam@ccc.govt.nz

941 6385

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Communities, Housing and Economic Development Committee

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

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

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

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

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Policy Content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Consultation

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

·   Strong overall support for the Policy framework and actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·   The long term security of tenants in all rental housing

·   The low overall quality of rental housing

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

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

·   Highlighting private sector engagement, especially in affordable housing

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

Recommended Policy Changes

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

Table One: Recommended changes to the Policy’s Framework

Policy Framework

Vision, Principles, Goals

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

Note good design within ‘Housing Quality’ goal

Context, Housing Continuum, Scope

Note the ageing population as a specific demographic change

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

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

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

Linkages, Giving Effect

Note the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Note the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement

Note the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan

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

 

Table Two: Recommended Changes to Schedule One of the Policy

 

Policy Actions

Demand Analysis, Building Knowledge

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

Note the monitoring and evaluating of housing actions in Deliverables

Co-ordination and information sharing Commitment – high priority

Mixed Housing, Inclusive Housing

Include ‘identifying’ within redevelopment of public land Commitment

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

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

Range of Responses, Acute Needs

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

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

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

Retaining Affordable Housing, Housing Quality

Make the ‘Affordable housing retention’ Commitment a high priority

Make the ‘Education and advocacy’ Commitment a high priority

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

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

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

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

 Giving Effect to the Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

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

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

Option Description

7.1       Do not adopt a Housing Policy.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

7.8       Funding source - nil

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Nil

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No extra cost to Council

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Attachment One - Draft Housing Policy Submissions

 

b 

Attachment Two - Recommended Housing Policy

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Paul Cottam - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Claire Bryant - Team Leader Policy

Philippa Green - Finance Business Partner

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

22 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


 

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


 

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