Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 6 September 2016

Time:                                    9am

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sara Templeton

Alexandra Davids

Joe Davies

Yani Johanson

Paul Lonsdale

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

 

31 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Barbara Strang

Community Board Advisor

941 6601

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 4

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 4

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

B       5.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4  

B       6.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 13

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Bells Creek Upstream Works - Tree Removals............................................................. 15

A       8.       Victoria Street An Accessible City Streetscape Improvements and Transport Changes......................................................................................................................................... 35

C       9.       Proposed CBD 30kph Speed Limit Threshold Enhancements.................................... 57

C       10.     Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street.............................................................................................................................. 65

C       11.     Proposed Give Way Control - Mt Pleasant / Summit Road....................................... 71

C       12.     Proposed Parking Changes - Fitzgerald Ave................................................................ 79

C       13.     Hagley/Ferrymead Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications ................. 87

C       14.     Application to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Te Whare Roimata Trust - Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan................ 93

B       15.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report................................................... 97

B       16.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 101

B       17.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 101 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 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 Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

 

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 16 August 2016

Time:                                    3.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Members

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sara Templeton

Alexandra Davids

Joe Davies

Yani Johanson

Paul Lonsdale

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

 

16 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Barbara Strang

Community Board Advisor

941 6601

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

An apology for absence was received from Joe Davies.

 

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00031

That the apology for absence from Joe Davies be accepted.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Paul Lonsdale                                                                                                                Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

 

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00032

That the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 be confirmed.

Alexandra Davids/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                         Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00033

That the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee held on Wednesday 27 July 2016 be confirmed.

Alexandra Davids/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                      Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

 

4.1       Nigel Lundy – Proposed Bus Stop 309-315 Hereford Street

The scheduled deputation did not attend. 

 

4.2       Greg Rawlinson – Linwood Park Maintenance

             The Board agreed to accept the application for a late deputation.

             Mr Rawlinson spoke to the Board about the maintenance of Linwood Park, including broken seating, litter and excess rubbish around the bins. 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00034

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Request an information memorandum on the number of complaints in regards to Linwood Park maintenance and reasons for delays in responses.

 

2.         Request that maintenance issues at Linwood Park including broken seating, damaged fences, rubbish bins and rubbish be urgently addressed.

 

Yani Johanson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There were no presentation of petitions.   

7.   Proposed Road Names - Randolph Street (RMA92026911)

Board Consideration

The Board considered a report on road naming for a unit title development creating six sites served by a common access.  Four names were submitted in the report in order of preference:

 

·     Wilrose Lane - William and Rose Gartshore who are the grandparents of the developer, founded the Gartshore Group sixty years ago. Wilrose is a combination of William and Rose’s first names. 

·     Linshore Lane - This is a combination of Linwood and Garshore.

·     Harper Lane - This name is in keeping with the theme of the area. It is named after Randolph Harper, who was born on the second ship “The Randolph” which was one of the first four ships to bring European settlers to Christchurch, but Christchurch already has a Harper Street in existence.

·     Cressy Lane - This is same as the above, it was named after one of the first four ships bringing settlers to Christchurch. There is Cressy Terrace in Lyttelton, but the two names more than satisfy Land Information New Zealand in respect to separation between two similar or same names, as it is in different areas.

 

 

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve the following name:

·     Wilrose Lane

 

 

 

 

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve the following name:

·     Wilrose Lane

A vote was requested on item 7 and was declared lost by 2 votes to 3 votes the voting being as follows:

For:                           Alexandra Davids and Paul Lonsdale

Against:                 Sara Templeton, Yani Johanson and Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00035

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve the following name:

·      Cressy Lane

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

6.   Staff Briefings

Part B

 

 

Environment Canterbury – Air Quality in Linwood/Woolston

Commissioner David Bedford and staff from Environment Canterbury provided a briefing for the Board on Canterbury’s Air Quality Programme, specifically in the Linwood, Bromley and Woolston areas.  

 

8.   Proposed Speed Limit Changes Hagley/Ferrymead Ward

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00036

Part C

Community Board Decision under Delegation (original staff recommendation accepted without change).

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve that pursuant to Section 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1.a to 1.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. 

Paul Lonsdale/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

Community Board Recommendation to the Council

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 & 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. 

 

 

9.   Proposed Bus Stops - Hereford Street and Stanmore Road

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00037

Part C

Community Board Decision under Delegation (original staff recommendation accepted without change).

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

80 Stanmore Road (Attachment A):

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 60 metres be revoked.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

3.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 38 metres south of its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the east side of Stanmore Road commencing at a point 52 metres south of its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

 

 

 

365-369 Hereford Street (Attachment B):

5.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a distance 300 metres west of its intersection with Stanmore Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be revoked.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 300 metres west of its intersection with Stanmore Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

7.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 304 metres west of its intersection with Stanmore Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 326 metres west of its intersection with Stanmore Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

364-368 Hereford Street (Attachment B):

9.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point  146 metres east of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 172 metres be revoked.

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 146 metres east of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of four metres.

11.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 150 metres east of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

12.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 164 metres east of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of eight metres.

309-315 Hereford Street (Attachment C):

13.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 104 metres be revoked.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres.

15.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 76 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

16.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 80 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

17.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at a point 95 metres west of its intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue and extending a westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Paul Lonsdale                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

10. Application to Hagley/Ferrymead Youth Development Fund - Burnside High School

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00038

Part C

Community Board Decision under Delegation (original staff recommendation accepted without change).

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board grant $100 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Burnside High School towards supporting Sam Deavoll attend a Spirit of Adventure Trophy Voyage in Auckland from 30 October to 3 November 2016.

Chairperson Templeton/Member Lonsdale                                                                                                    Carried

 

11. Application to Hagley/Ferrymead Youth Development Fund - Palamo Family

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00039

Part C

Community Board Decision under Delegation (original staff recommendation accepted without change).

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board grant  $700 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to the Palamo family towards supporting Fia Palamo, Winnie Palamo and Fia Lai Kong represent Canterbury in four netball tournaments from 31 July to 21 August.

Yani Johanson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

12. Update to Community Board

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00040

Part C

Community Board Decision under Delegation (original staff recommendation accepted without change).

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

2.         Receive the application and grant a leave of absence, without pay, to Joe Davies for the period       31 August 2016 to the end of the 2013-2016 electoral term.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                         Carried

 

13. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

·        History relating to street naming decisions in the Hagley/Ferrymead ward.

·        Council decision for Avonside Drive to remain open, and a request from a resident for partial closure.

·        Charleston Reserve play-horse replacement and Cutler Park maintenance.

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00041

The Board requests staff advice on the request for partial closure of Avonside Drive in regards to future Red Zone plans/decisions.

Yani Johanson/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

14. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.42pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

 

 

Sara Templeton

Chairperson

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

6.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/968235

Contact:

Barbara Strang

barbara.strang@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Update from Land Information New Zealand

Jeremy Barr, Group Manager Canterbury Recovery

Land Information New Zealand

Update from the Earthquake Commission

Keith Land, Head of Canterbury Land Settlement

Earthquake Commission

Development in East Frame Residential

Mark Riddell, Development Manager

Fletcher Living

Riccarton Bus Priority Work

Peter Hume, Senior Communications Advisor

Christchurch City Council

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

7.        Bells Creek Upstream Works - Tree Removals

Reference:

16/956365

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is seek approval from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board for the removal and replacement of six park trees and transplanting of one street tree for the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) Bells Creek flood mitigation works, under part 5 of the Council’s delegations register.

·    Part 5 Parks and Reserves, 5.6: Trees on reserves, parks and roads: Community Boards have the power to "Determine to plant, maintain and remove trees on reserves, parks and roads under the control of the Council within the policy set by the Council".

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff is generated, and is in response to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee resolution to endorse (5 November 2015) and the Council resolution (CNCL/2015/00022) to grant approval for the design and construction of the Bells Creek flood mitigation works.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance of approving the removal of the trees was determined by a score of 14 based on the significance criteria used by the Council.

2.1.2   Community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect this assessment.  To date this has included informing the Community Board, and further engagement with stakeholders will occur prior to the works.

2.1.3   Not approving the removal of the trees may increase the level of significance to medium (determined by a score of 27), due the inability to fulfil the project requirements and returning to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and Council for further endorsement and resolution.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approves the removal and replacement of six park trees and the transplanting of one street tree to allow the Bells Creek flood mitigation works to be implemented.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·        Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·        Option 1 – Approve the removal and replacement of the trees to allow the Bells Creek flood mitigation works to be implemented (preferred option).

·        Option 2 – Decline the removal of the trees.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        Facilitate improving the existing level of service through the construction of a detention basin within Edmonds Park to minimise the risks of flooding of upstream properties.

·        Reduce the risks of damage to the pump station (to be located at 12 Richardson Terrace) and potential flooding of the catchment area through the installation of a debris screen within Woolston Park.

·        Opportunity to replace trees that are in poor condition and improve tree cover and amenity in the long term.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·        Immediate loss of some tree cover, although the trees to be removed are relatively minor and/or in poor condition.

4.4       Engagement – the sites where trees require removal are in areas with relatively low visibility to the majority of the public, and the loss of amenity will be relatively low.  The project team are informing affected stakeholders identified in the Bells Creek Communications and Engagement Plan.

 

5.   Context/Background

Bells Creek Upstream Works

5.1       The works were initiated following the 2011 earthquakes to mitigate flood risks within the Bells Creek catchment, which experienced significant changes in levels.

5.2       In November 2015, the Council granted approval for the Bells Creek flood mitigation works to provide a greater level of protection from flooding (Resolution CNCL/2015/00022). The works include pipe upgrades, two detention basins and a pump station with a screen upstream.

5.3       The flood mitigation works will require tree removal in the following locations:

·   Edmonds Park (sports fields area and Ryan Street) – to create a detention basin to protect the upper portion of the catchment. The sports field will be reinstated following the construction of the detention basin, and will be flooded during extreme rainfall events (greater than approximately a five year annual exceedance probability event);

·   Woolston Park (eastern boundary) – to allow the construction of a screen to trap debris to protect the pump station.

Tree Removals

5.4       A tree assessment has been carried out within the sites listed above to quantify the potential effects of the proposed works on street and park trees (refer attached tree report from Arbor Vitae Ltd, dated 16 August 2016).  Based upon the project design there are seven trees identified as requiring removal for the works, which included the following:

·   Six Park Trees;

·   One Street Tree (to be transplanted).

5.5       The works in Edmonds Park are in the northern half of the park which is currently occupied by two soccer fields. The fields will be reinstated following the construction of the basins. The affected trees and proposed replacements in Edmonds Park and Ryan Street are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Edmonds Park and Ryan Street tree removals and replacements

 

5.6       The works in Woolston Park are in the north-eastern corner of the park, and require the removal of one tree to allow the installation of the screen (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Woolston Park tree removal and replacement

 

5.7       Further details of the removals and replacements are provided in the attachment.

5.8       The condition of each tree was evaluated using the Christchurch City Council tree assessment system.  At the time of the tree survey, the condition of the trees that will removed included the following:

·   Four trees in Fair condition;

·   Two trees in Poor condition;

·   One tree in Very Poor condition.

5.9       The Christchurch City Council tree assessment system involves assessing the overall condition of a tree using the criteria outlined below:

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 

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

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

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

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

5.10    Alternative design options have been considered that would allow for the retention of the trees.  However due to the following constraints, no feasible alternative alignment, design and construction options were identified that would allow for the retention of the trees.

·   Site constraints within Edmonds Park include the reconstruction of the existing soccer fields within the new detention basin.  There are existing trees on the western and eastern sides of Edmonds Park, with the trees on the eastern side being more significant.  In order to provide adequate clearance between the trees on the eastern side of the park and the excavation required for the detention basin, it is proposed that the less significant trees on the western side of the park are removed.  This will allow for the retention of the trees on the eastern side of the park and the required width of the soccer fields and side-line areas to be maintained.

·   Site constraints within Woolston Park include the alignment of the existing culvert.  The area where the debris screen is to be constructed has been selected to minimise potential impacts on the visual amenity and use of the park, potential adverse effects on significant trees within the park, and to optimise the connections to existing stormwater pipes.

5.11    Replacement tree planting is planned to be carried out as part of the project, and is expected to occur during the planting season following the completion of the works.  The transplanting of the street tree will occur prior to the works.

·   Within Edmonds Park the replacement trees will include five Turkish Hazel (Corylus colurna) being planted on the eastern side of the park.  Due to the close proximity of the detention basin to the western boundary, it will not be possible to replace trees within the immediate vicinity of the locations where the existing trees are removed.

·   Within Woolston Park the replacement tree will include one Miyabei Maple (Acer miyabei) being planted on the eastern side of the park, near the location where the existing tree will be removed.

·   The existing English Ash (Fraxinus excelsior) street tree in Ryan Street (outside 85 Aldwins Road) is to be transplanted to another suitable location within Ryan Street (outside 347 Ferry Road).

5.12    The proposed tree removals and replacement planting have been confirmed with the Parks Unit as being appropriate.

6.   Option 1 - Tree removal and replacement to implement the Bells Creek flood mitigation works (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the removal and replacement of six park trees and transplanting of one street tree, to allow the Bells Creek flood mitigation works to be implemented as per Council resolution CNCL/2015/00022.

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 provided in the Bells Creek Communications and Engagement Plan, and is based on informing key stakeholders.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Local residents and park users may be affected by this option.  However this is expected to be minor due to the size and/or condition of the trees.  The project team will engage with affected stakeholders through the implementation of the Bells Creek Communications and Engagement Plan.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.5       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including Council resolution CNCL/2015/00022.

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – the estimated cost of removing and replacing the trees is $3,500.

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the establishment maintenance for the replacement trees is estimated to be $900 over 2 years.

6.8       Funding source – the removal and replacement of the trees will be funded by the project.  The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and within the budget for next financial year (2016/17) there is sufficient provision to enact the works.

Legal Implications

6.9       There are no legal implications relating to the removal and replacement of the trees, as this is a routine tree maintenance operation.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.10    If approval for the tree removals is not granted then additional design work will be required resulting in a delay to the implementation of the works. This results in an increased risk to the community should a flood event occur during the delay.

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies – approval from the Community Board is required for the removal of the trees that will be affected by the Bells Creek flood mitigation works.

6.12    Implementation timeframe – The Bells Creek flood mitigation works (including the tree removals in Edmonds Park and Woolston Park) are planned to start in November 2016.  The street tree in Ryan Street will be transplanted in September 2016, and replacement tree planting within the parks will occur during the winter planting season following the works (May/June 2017).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Facilitate improving the existing level of service through the construction of a detention basin within Edmonds Park to minimise the risks of flooding of upstream properties.

·   Reduce the risks of damage to the pump station (to be located at 12 Richardson Terrace) and potential flooding of the catchment area through the installation of a debris screen within Woolston Park.

·   Opportunity to replace trees that are in poor condition and improve tree cover and amenity in the long term.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Immediate loss of some tree cover, although the trees to be removed are relatively minor and/or in poor condition.

7.   Option 2 – Decline the removal of the trees

Option Description

7.1       Decline the removal of the trees.  This would prevent the effective implementation of the project, potentially resulting in delays, increased costs and risk of flooding while alternative solutions are considered.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium (determined by a score of 27) which differs from section 2.1.1 of this report due the engagement requirements, inability to fully implement the project, and returning to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and Council for further endorsement and resolution.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Various stakeholder that have already been involved in previous engagement processes relating to the flood mitigation projects may be specifically affected by this option due to the inability to deliver the project outcomes.  There is an interest in the Council’s ability to resolve flooding related issues in some sectors in the community. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding would not be fully implemented.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – the Bells Creek flood mitigation works cannot be fully implemented as Council resolution CNCL/2015/00022.

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – the design would require revision and may not achieve the flood mitigation benefits required.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – this has not been quantified but will likely increase the project design and construction costs.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be ongoing costs of maintaining the trees (especially the trees that are in poor condition).

7.8       Funding source - The Long Term Plan has funding allocated to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  The future maintenance of the trees will continue to be funded from the Parks Unit operational budget.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    The project will not be effectively implemented, and the delay increases the risk of flooding to the community.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – this option could result in delays to the project.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The trees will be retained

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The project will not be effectively implemented.

·   Flood mitigation works in Bells Creek catchment will be delayed.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LDRP 501- Bells Creek Upstream Works Tree Report - 16 August 2016

23

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Unit Manager, Storm Water and Land Drainage Rebuild

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

8.        Victoria Street An Accessible City Streetscape Improvements and Transport Changes

Reference:

16/984457

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 that the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board considers the scheme design for the Victoria Street An Accessible City (AAC) project and provides its feedback and recommendations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.  

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The origin of this project is the AAC chapter of the Central Christchurch Recovery Plan.  This project is a specifically identified and funded project within Council's 2015-2015 Long Term Plan. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix

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 to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee adoption of the scheme designs relating to the Victoria Street An Accessible City project as detailed on Attachment A of this report. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network Level of Service: 10.0.1 Provide journey reliability on specific strategic routes

·     Level of Service: 10.0.2 Promote modal shift: Decrease the percentage share of car trips

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

4.1.2   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance


 

4.1.3   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

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

·     Level of Service: 10.4.3 Provide journey reliability on high frequency core services

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Victoria Street Transport Changes and Streetscape Enhancement (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Is consistent with the AAC vision for the central city

·     Promotes use of the north / south one-way system and four avenues for the movement of traffic with additional capacity

·     Provides an enhanced streetscape

·     Addresses dilapidated pavement, footpath and kerb and channel

·     Co-ordinated with pavement resurfacing on Bealey Avenue

·     Co-ordinated with two-waying of Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street

·     Improves bus journey times and reliability on Victoria Street

·     Facilitates a cycle connection between Victoria Street and Victoria Square

·     Improved pedestrian environment, and ability for pedestrians to cross Victoria Street

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Reduced car parking

·     Some additional traffic movement restrictions anticipated (to be confirmed through the Salisbury and Kilmore Street two-way projects)

 

5.   Context/Background

An Accessible City

5.1       In October 2013 the An Accessible City (AAC) transport chapter was adopted into the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.  The AAC chapter seeks to respond to earlier feedback from the community over future transport arrangements in the central city, as received through the Share an Idea community consultation of 2011, and later reflected in elements of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan blueprint of land-use development adopted in 2012.  The Recovery Plan is built upon a principle of achieving a compact, people friendly core. This will create an attractive environment for people to live, work, visit and spend time in the central city.

5.2       The overarching transport objective is to manage future traffic volumes to around pre-earthquake levels and hence avoid the onset of excessive traffic congestion which might otherwise result from the projected land uses contained in the Recovery Plan.  The success of this objective is dependent on achieving a significant uptake of travel by public and active transport modes. 

5.3       Subsequently Council has adopted a programme of works that deliver the transport changes and street scape enhances that give effect to AAC through the Long Term Plan. 

5.4       The AAC project for Victoria Street is programmed for construction in the current financial year. 

Streets and Spaces Design Guide

5.5       In April 2015 Council endorsed the Streets and Spaces Design Guide (SSDG).  The SSDG sets out an agreed long-term vision for the network of streets and public spaces in central Christchurch.  It states:

“Victoria Street is a street lined by new buildings of contemporary architecture. The street is within the maximum 30km/h zone and is also a bus route. The concept cross-section provides for dedicated on road cycle lanes and allows flexibility to use the amenity zone for either on-street parking or areas for outdoor dining. These uses could alternate depending on the time of the day and the season.”

Problem Summary

5.6       Before the earthquakes, Council was preparing to undertake a renewal of the Salisbury Street to Bealey Avenue section of Victoria Street in 2012/2013 due to poor pavement and kerb condition.

5.7       Prior to consultation on the Victoria Street project, Council staff were involved in series of stakeholder meetings with the Victoria Streetscape group and the Victoria Neighbourhood Association.  These identified the poor quality of the streetscape and difficulties for pedestrians crossing Victoria Street as the principal concerns. 

5.8       In 2014 a change was made to Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw that set the speed limit of Victoria Street at 30km/h.  Under AAC “Streets will be designed to support and reinforce the intended speed environments so that the system is self-explaining to users”.  Presently the wide an uninterrupted roadway on Victoria Street does not support 30km/h speeds. 

5.9       The attractiveness of Victoria Street for northbound traffic leaving the CBD to continue along Papanui Road leads to congestion along Victoria Street between Montreal Street and Papanui Road in the evening.  This is a particular issue for public transport. Victoria Street carries the Blue line, and hence forms a major public transport link.  Because there is presently no priority for public transport on Victoria Street, this section of the route is the critical pinch point for the Blue line particularly in the evening peak but also periods at lunch time and in the afternoons. 

5.10    The traffic management strategy of AAC is based on a greater reliance on the one-way system and four avenues to accommodate traffic.  The intended route for northbound traffic exiting the CBD in the evening and destined for Papanui Road is along Montreal Street, Bealey Avenue and then Papanui Road.  Factors influencing drivers to use Victoria Street in favour of the Montreal Street route include the directness of Victoria Street into Papanui Road and having to cross three lanes of traffic on Bealey Avenue to be able to right turn into Papanui Road from Bealey Avenue. 

5.11    Under AAC the Kilmore Street and Salisbury Street one-way pair are to be converted to two-way streets.  This is also reflected in Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw through a change made through the CER Act in 2014. This bylaw schedules Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street to expire as one-way streets in 2017.  Currently Council has programmed the conversion of Kilmore Street and Salisbury Streets to two-way in the 2017/18 and 2018/19 financial years.  Traffic management at the Victoria / Salisbury / Montreal and Victoria / Kilmore / Durham intersections has a significant influence on the Victoria Street project. 

5.12    Any approved changes must be able to accommodate the switch from one-way to two-way traffic within the next three years.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Victoria Street Traffic Management Changes and Street Scape Enhancements (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option is to implement the package of traffic management changes and streetscape enhancements as indicated on the scheme plans provided as Attachment A.

6.2       It is noted that the works package includes capacity and safety improvement changes to Bealey Avenue intersections with Montreal Street and Durham Street.  This is because the prioritisation of Montreal Street as a traffic route is critical to the success of Victoria Street as a “Main Street”, as identified in the Streets and Spaces Design Guide.

6.3       Significant consideration has been given to the design of the Montreal/Salisbury/Victoria and Durham/Kilmore/Victoria intersections.  Consultation identified the loss of traffic movement at these intersections as a key concern.  These concerns have been responded to through substantive changes to the design.    Intersection layouts shown for Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street are indicative only, and subject to further consultation through the Salisbury and Kilmore Street two-way conversion project.  Due to the short timeframe between the Victoria Street project and the Salisbury and Kilmore Street project it would be desirable for the implementation of changes at the Kilmore and Salisbury Street intersections to occur as part of the two-waying work packages. 

6.4       The key features of the works package include:

·   Improved traffic flow at the Montreal Street / Bealey Avenue intersection.  This introduces two left turn lanes from Montreal Street into Bealey Avenue.  A cycle lane is provided on Montreal Street as per the Streets and Spaces cross-section.

·   Improved traffic flow at the Bealey Avenue / Papanui Road intersection.  This introduces two right turn lanes from Bealey Avenue into Papanui Road. 

·   Removal of the left turn slip lane from Bealey Avenue into Papanui Road to improve pedestrian priority and comfort.

·   Cycle lanes provided on Bealey Avenue from the west of Papanui Road to the Durham Street intersection as per the Streets and Spaces cross-section.

·   Pedestrian crossings across Bealey Avenue at Durham Street and Montreal Street are split to reduce the crossing length and improving flexibility in the phasing of the intersection.

·   Streetscape enhancements on Victoria Street midblock sections in general accordance with SSDG, which allows for build outs and footpath extensions, trees and street furniture.

·   Introduction of raised platforms on Victoria Street at Dorset Street and outside 98 Victoria Street to slow traffic.

·   Changes to the Montreal Street/Salisbury Street/Victoria Street intersection (indicative only):

·     Allow vehicle traffic from Victoria Street (north) and Victoria Street (south).

·     Allow left turning vehicles from Victoria Street (north) to Salisbury Street (east) for drivers to access Durham Street.

·     Provide additional pedestrian space around the heritage Clock Tower.

·   Changes to the Durham Street/Kilmore Street/Victoria Street intersection (indicative only):

·     Allow right turning traffic from Kilmore Street (east) into Victoria Street.

·     Provide bus priority through restricting vehicle turns from Victoria Street into Kilmore Street by only allowing buses and shuttles.

·     Allow cycles to travel between Victoria Street to Victoria Square and Durham Street.

Parking

6.5       A summary of parking changes associated with the preferred option is provided on Attachment B

6.6       There are presently 251 car parking spaces within the project area.   Under the preferred option 197 car parking spaces are retained, or some 80 per cent of the existing parking. 

6.7       On Victoria Street there are presently 93 car parking spaces, of which it is proposed to retain 62 spaces (67 per cent retained). 

6.8       Car parking reductions are dispersed across the project area.  Some of the car parking reduction, particularly on Victoria Street, is due to conversion to mobility and motorcycle parking, loading areas and bus stops.  Other reductions stem from changes to intersections and proposed kerb build-outs. 

6.9       Half the overall parking reduction occurs on Bealey Avenue and Montreal Street.  The reduced parking on these streets enables the construction of additional traffic lanes, which are crucial to enabling northbound traffic on Montreal Street to access Papanui Road via Montreal Street / Bealey Avenue rather than via Victoria Street.  

6.10    The preferred option seeks to minimise the impacts of parking loss, firstly by minimising the number of parking spaces that are removed and secondly by operating the available parking in a way that most suits the users.  The preferred option retains 10 more car parking spaces than the original consultation plan.  More than half of the 41 changes to the design following consultation are related to improvements to parking. 

6.11    Council staff are also investigating temporary off-street parking on a site to help cater for some local workers concerned with the reduced availability of all-day parking.

Significance

6.12    The level of significance of this option is high and is consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to consult with stakeholders and the wider community on the project need, alternatives, opportunities and solutions so that any concerns, alternatives and aspirations are understood and considered.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.13    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

6.14    The distribution of 1800 booklets, 1300 flyers, as well as emails, was backed by a media campaign highlighting the consultation.  Three public presentations and drop-in sessions were held during the consultation period to outline project objectives, discuss proposals, and to answer questions.

6.15    Analysis of the 307 submissions received revealed that feedback was divided, with 132 submitters (43 per cent) generally supporting the proposals and 170 (55 per cent) generally opposing them. Five submitters (two per cent) did not indicate a view.

6.16    As a result of consultation, 41 changes have been made to the plans recommended for Council approval. A full list of recommended changes can be viewed in Attachment C.

6.17    The most contentious issues arising from the consultation plans centred on vehicle access – particularly cars restricted from travelling between north and south Victoria Street and prevented from turning left onto Salisbury Street from Victoria Street north – and loss of on-street parking.

6.18    Eighty one submitters criticised proposals to reduce traffic access on Victoria Street and prioritise Montreal Street and Bealey Avenue, while 23 supported these moves.

6.19    As a result of feedback, Council staff are recommending full access between the northern and southern sections of Victoria Street, and also providing a left turn for southbound Victoria Street drivers and cyclists onto Salisbury Street.  In addition, Kilmore Street drivers will be able to turn right onto Victoria Street south.

6.20    In order to achieve the bus, cycle and pedestrian priority required by the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (in the An Accessible City chapter), it is recommended that the right turn from Victoria Street south to Durham Street be restricted to buses and shuttles. However, other vehicles would be able to turn left onto Peterborough Street and then right onto Durham Street through the signalised intersection.

6.21    Further consultation on traffic movements on the Salisbury / Victoria / Montreal and Kilmore / Victoria / Durham intersection will be undertaken next year as part of the Salisbury and Kilmore Street two-way project.

6.22    Loss of on-street parking along Victoria Street was opposed by 73 submitters. Another six submitters associated with Knox Church criticised the proposed removal of car parks along Bealey Avenue, from Montreal Street to Victoria Street, to make way for two right turning lanes onto Papanui Road.

6.23    Since consultation, 10 additional on-street car parks, two loading zones and two motorcycle parks have been added.  A mobility park is proposed on the north side of Peterborough Street between Victoria Street and Durham Street.  All proposed parking changes are detailed in Attachment B.

6.24    A separate consultation was undertaken from 15 July to 1 August 2016 on a proposal to create additional P120 parking spaces (from 9am to 6pm, Monday to Sunday) on sections of Bealey Avenue and also on Montreal Street, opposite Beveridge Street. These plans, which are supported by Knox Church leaders, have been included in the recommended plans.

6.25    Forty three submitters said the Victoria Street consultation plans would have a serious impact on businesses, with several questioning their future on the street. However, 20 other submitters said the proposals would benefit businesses, adding that this view was backed by overseas studies.  They supported the project objectives to deliver bus, cycle and pedestrian priority along Victoria Street and create a destination, while encouraging cars to travel up Montreal Street.

6.26    Forty five supporters and opponents felt the proposals would create a more pleasant environment along Victoria Street and wanted the landscaping elements to proceed.  However, another 53 submitters criticised the cost of the project and whether it is a Council priority right now.  The Project Team have advised submitters that the Victoria Street upgrade was programmed before the earthquakes and changes at the major intersections are required so that Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street can be switched from one way to two-way within the next three years.

6.27    Thirteen submitters did not support the proposed Norway maple (Acer platanoides) tree, generally preferring a non-deciduous tree species to avoid leaf fall issues.  Eight submitters supported the proposed trees which are recommended for approval because they provide light and sun in winter and shade in summer. They are also stipulated in the CERA and Council approved Streets and Spaces Design Guide.  Council landscape architects have since identified a columnar variety of Norway maple which will reduce the area of overhang and leaf fall.  This is being recommended.

6.28    Bus priority and the proposed location of some bus stops on Victoria Street and Papanui Road prompted criticism. Several submitters, including the operators of Bishopspark Retirement Village, supported retention of the existing bus stop near the Dorset Street intersection.  This bus stop, and its partner stop across the road at 148 Victoria Street, have been reinstated in the recommended plans.

6.29    The bus stops proposed in the consultation plans outside 17 Papanui Road and 20/22 Papanui Road, and 137 and 102 Victoria Street, are no longer recommended because of the distances involved. Bus stops are now recommended outside 87 Victoria Street (instead of 61/63 Victoria Street), and 56/60 Victoria Street once Kilmore Street goes two-way. Until then the proposed bus stop outside 56/60 would be marked for parking.

6.30    Eight submitters criticised the consultation and decision-making process for this project. The steps taken in the consultation process comply with the Local Government Act 2002 and have been confirmed by the Council’s legal team.  Every effort has been made to carefully consider all submissions and provide project updates to submitters. Those who wish to be heard have been advised how they can apply for speaking rights at the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting on 16 September 2016.

6.31    Comments about traffic signals and the functioning of intersections, as well as further improvements for cyclists and pedestrians, have all been considered.  Some features, such as the location of cycle parks, will be identified during detailed design. 

6.32    A summary of submissions and responses are on the Council’s website:
www.ccc.govt.nz/aac-consultation

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.33    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies and the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. 

Financial Implications

6.34    Cost of Implementation is approximately $7.2 million.

6.35    Maintenance / ongoing costs are not anticipated to change significantly.  Some additional cost is anticipated as a result of increased green space and cleaning around the kerb build-outs, and some reduced costs to maintain footpaths and pavement.   

6.36    Funding source - this project is funded through Council's Capital Programme of the 2015-25 Long Term Plan (Project 18324 AAC Victoria Street).  The project has funding of $7.2 million within the 2015/16 and 2017/18 financial years. 

Legal Implications

6.37    The Victoria Street AAC project is deemed a Metropolitan Project.  Under the Delegations Register it the responsibility of the Council to make the relevant decisions for a Metropolitan Project.     

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

6.39    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2008.

Risks and Mitigations

6.40    Risk Management was applied by the project team early in the planning phase.  A risk assessment working group was established, with risk identification workshops carried out. The principal objective was to identify, analyse, rank, assess and, if required and practicable, action measures to be taken to avoid or mitigate all high, significant and moderate risks. From the risk register some of the key risks identified were;

6.40.1    Negative and or adverse public reaction to loss of parking and restricted traffic movements. This will be mitigated by;

· Early consultation with stakeholders and business groups to identify needs and expectations

· Extensive consultation and media campaign

·  Modifications to scheme where practicable

6.40.2    Business disruption due to construction works and intersection layout changes causing adverse public reaction.  This will be mitigated by:

·  Works planning to consider business trading hours.

·  Investigation of night work opportunities.

·  Advanced notifications and communication to business.

·  Approved Traffic Management Plans in place.

6.40.3    Insufficient funding for project, resulting in budget overrun and departure from approved design.  This has been managed through design reviews and cost estimates. Design scoped to meet project budget of $7.2 million, and objectives.

6.40.4    Project delay causing adverse public reaction and business disruption.  As part of tender conditions, the contractor will be required to demonstrate through detailed construction program the sequencing and execution of works, which minimises disruption to business.

6.40.5    Striking or damage to services disrupting business's and traffic operations.  Contractor as part of tender conditions will be required to submit ground penetration/excavation management plan for CCC review and approval.

6.41    The periodic risk review workshops will continue to be held through to the end of the project which applies management strategies for identified risks. 

Implementation

6.42    Implementation dependencies - staff are working collaboratively with adjacent project teams to manage timing and connectivity with adjacent projects.  These include the resurfacing and water main renewals on Bealey Avenue and the interface with the upcoming Salisbury and Kilmore Street two-way project.

6.43    Implementation timeframe - the timeframe for Implementation of the project has a current schedule start date of 16th February 2016 and a scheduled end date of 28th July 2016.  It is proposed to defer construction of the Salisbury and Kilmore intersections for delivery as part of the two-waying project, which has been initiated and will be consulted on in early 2017. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.44    The advantages of this option include:

·   Is consistent with the AAC vision for the central city

·   Promotes use of the north / south one-way system and four avenues for the movement of traffic with additional capacity

·   Provides an enhanced streetscape

·   Addresses dilapidated pavement, footpath and kerb and channel

·   Co-ordinated with pavement resurfacing on Bealey Avenue

·   Co-ordinated with two-waying of Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street

·   Improves bus journey times and reliability on Victoria Street

·   Facilitates a cycle connection between Victoria Street and Victoria Square

·   Improved pedestrian environment, and ability for pedestrians to cross Victoria Street

6.45    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduced car parking

·   Some additional traffic movement restrictions anticipated (to be confirmed through the Salisbury and Kilmore Street two-way project)

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain Victoria Street in its current form.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low which differs from section 2 of this report due to the lack of changes to the street.  There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

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       Community views were not sought on the option to ‘Do Nothing’.  However, 55 submitters on the current proposals queried the cost and/or priority of Option 1 while 45, including supporters and critics, generally felt the proposals would create a more pleasant environment on Victoria Street. (The Victoria Street upgrade was programmed before the earthquakes and traffic changes are required to accommodate the change from one-way to two-way traffic on Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street in two to three years.)

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Is inconsistent with CCRP, the LTP and the SSDG. 

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - This option fails to provide the traffic function and streetscape elements for Victoria Street determined through AAC.  Do nothing is inconsistent with the LTP, which funds the project in the current financial year.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Nil.

7.7       Maintenance / ongoing costs – higher maintenance costs due to poor pavement condition.

7.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Proposed changes to Victoria Street and surrounding traffic routes enable necessary changes to intersections as part of the upcoming two-waying project for Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street.  If the preferred option was not adopted, a secondary package of works can be anticipated to supplement the two-waying project.  Combined with the present pavement and kerbing condition, a situation may arise where significant cost is incurred on Victoria Street through a piecemeal maintenance and renewals programme, but without the benefits of a coordinated and comprehensive renewal. 

7.11    The present 30km/h speed limit on Victoria Street was imposed under the expectation that the AAC package of works would provide a streetscape that supports this speed limit.  If the Council decides not to implement the AAC package of works, this it can be anticipated that the speed limit of Victoria Street would be raised to 50km/h. 

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains current parking levels

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Undermines the credibility of the 30km/h speed limit for the street

·   Potentially incompatible with works necessary to convert Kilmore Street and Salisbury Streets to two-way

·   Inconsistent with the AAC vision for the central city

·   Dilapidated pavement, kerbs and pavements are not addressed, increased maintenance costs

·   Does not address public transport delays on Victoria Street

·   Retains present issues with congestion and difficulties for pedestrians crossing the street

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Scheme Plans for Victoria Street

46

b

Parking Changes at Victoria Street and surrounds

54

c

Summary of Changes to Plans for Victoria Street and Surrounding Traffic Routes Following Consultation

55

 

 

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

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Gemma Dioni - Senior Traffic Engineer

Jennie Hamilton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

9.        Proposed CBD 30kph Speed Limit Threshold Enhancements

Reference:

16/929977

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 for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of a 30 kilometres per hour threshold treatment on Park Terrace. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and follows the implementation of the 30 kilometres per hour (kph) speed limit area earlier this year. 

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 consideration of the level of impact of the decisions and the number of people affected.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Approves that a 30 kilometre per hour speed limit threshold, consisting of traffic islands, signage and road markings, be constructed on Park Terrace at a point 25 metres south of Kilmore Street, in accordance with Attachment A

2.         Revokes all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Park Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 95 metres.

3.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Park Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44 metres.

4.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum time period of 120 minutes on the eastern side of Park Terrace, commencing at a point 44 metres south of its intersection with Kilmore Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 51 metres. 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations:

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

·     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 30kph Speed Limit Threshold enhancements (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Enhances legibility and credibility of the 30kph Central Business District (CBD) speed limit area

·     Contributes to the creation of CBD ‘gateways’ and the identity of the inner CBD 30kph area

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The speed limit of roads within the central CBD was reduced to 30kph by the Minister of Earthquake Recovery by public notice of a change to Council’s Speed Limits Bylaw under the CERA Act at the end of 2014. 

5.2       In March 2016 Council implemented the change to 30kph.  At the time of implementation a basic package of signage was implemented, still consisting of some 130 signs.  Keeping the signage system basic enabled staff to coordinate the erection of the signs and unveiling on a particular date that was coordinated with a media campaign to ensure the public were aware of the change. 

5.3       The nature of the 30kph area is highly suited to a suite of threshold treatments around the cordon to emphasis the speed limit change to motorists.  It is proposed to enhance the legibility of the 30kph area by the installation of enhanced threshold treatments at the entry points to the 30kph area.  The locations of the thresholds are shown on Attachment B

5.4       In July 2016 staff consulted on a proposal to extend the 30kph area into St Asaph Street and Hagley Avenue.  At the time of preparation of this report, Council had not made a decision on this proposal.  The decision affects the location of threshold treatments at the southern edge of the 30kph cordon.  A second package of thresholds will be consulted on once Council has confirmed the speed limit of St Asaph Street and Hagley Avenue. 

5.5       It is noted that this report only applies to the threshold on Park Terrace because the authority for traffic matters in the Hagley / Ferrymead Community Board for the area of the CBD identified on Plan A of the Delegations Register has been retained by Council.  This includes the majority of the 30kph area, but not Park Terrace. 

5.6       A separate report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends approval of the remainder of the threshold treatments. 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install Enhanced 30kph Threshold Treatments (preferred)

Option Description

This option involves constructing enhanced threshold treatments at the entry points to the CBD 30kph speed limit area at the locations shown on Attachment B.6.2      In principle there are two threshold types.  Major gateways are proposed on the main traffic routes into the CBD.  These consist of coloured pavement markings and large 30kph “Central City” signs on a blue backing board (Refer Attachment C).  Minor gateways consist of standard speed limit signage and coloured pavement markings.  Park Terrace is a major gateway. 

6.3       Due to the specific constraints at each site, a customised design has been prepared for each site.  Where practical the traffic lane width has been narrowed by traffic islands on major gateways, which also serve the purpose of housing the larger signs.  It is not practical to install the larger signs in all major gateway locations because of insufficient clearance to traffic lanes. 

6.4       It is noted that there has been some debate over the wording at the base of the signs.  Staff consider “Central City” to be the most appropriate wording, but are open to other suggestions. However, this would need to be consistent on all signs.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       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

6.7       Following installation of the 30kph speed limit, Council has received a lot of feedback about the general legibility of the lower speed limit area, highlighting the importance of enhancing the change points.

6.8       Consultation on the proposed thresholds was undertaken with all adjacent businesses, residents and property owners. 

6.9       There were three responses specific to the Park Terrace threshold.  Two submitters opposed the threshold due to the loss of three P120 car parking spaces.  It is noted that the proposal does not remove parking on the frontage of the two submitter properties. 

6.10    One submission supports the Park Terrace threshold.  The support relates to enhanced safety through reduction of traffic speed around Cathedral Grammar School.  The submission requested several minor amendments to the design, which have been accommodated. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - Approximately $26,000 for the installation of this threshold.

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

6.14    Funding source - TP30k AAC Slow Core budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

6.17    The Park Terrace site is not within the Plan A area as identified within the Register of Delegations, within which all traffic matters require a Council decision. 

6.18    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

6.19    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.21    Implementation timeframe - Approximately eight weeks following Community Board approval.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Enhances legibility and credibility of the 30kph CBD speed limit

·   Contributes to the creation of CBD  ‘gateways’ and the identity of the inner CBD 30kph area

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes three P120 car parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       To rely on the current 30kph speed limit signage

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community feedback, suggesting that signage identifying the 30kph is presently insufficient.   

7.5       See paragraphs 6.9 and 6.10 for comments specific to the Park Terrace threshold. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not enhance the visibility and credibility of the 30kph CBD speed limit area

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30kph Threshold Treatment Park Terrace

62

b

30kph Threshold Treatment Location Plan

63

c

30kph Threshold Treatment Major Gateway Generic Cross Section

64

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Ryan Rolston - Senior Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

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

Reference:

16/727720

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

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

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

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

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes four car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

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

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

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

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

Option Description

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

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – approximately $200.

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

69

b

Location Plan

70

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

11     Proposed Give Way Control - Mt Pleasant / Summit Road

Reference:

16/863234

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of a Give Way control on Mt Pleasant Road at its intersection with Summit Road, as shown in Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a customer service request and subsequent staff investigations.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approves the installation of a Give Way Control against Mt Pleasant Road at its intersection with Summit Road.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Approve Give Way Control  (preferred option)

·   Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves road safety as it clearly indicates the best place for traffic to yield for the purpose of giving way.

4.3.2   There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a recent concern raised by a member of the public regarding the operation of the intersection of Mt Pleasant Road and Summit Road. The intersection is an uncontrolled T intersection with priority given to Summit Road. Mt Pleasant Road and Summit road are both classified as collector roads, located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

5.2       The intersection has a slightly unusual layout. Summit Road north approach descends into a left hand curve at the intersection of Mt Pleasant Road. There is a relatively large radius curve on the left side on Mt Pleasant Road into Summit Road east so the intersection has a large sealed area.  The only markings are centrelines on each approach.

5.3       For vehicles approaching the intersection from Mt Pleasant Road it is not clear where vehicles are required to yield for the purpose of giving way. Because of the unusual layout it is easy for a driver to travel too far into the intersection before looking to give way and they are at risk of being struck by traffic on Summit Road.

5.4       One crash has been reported from 2006-2016. A vehicle travelling eastbound on Summit Road lost control when turning.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install Give Way Control (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the installation of a Give Way Control on Mt Pleasant Road at its intersection with Summit Road.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option 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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The community has not been consulted on the proposed Give Way control as there are no specific impacts on property owners. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.5.1   Cost of Implementation - $500 for Give Way control and road markings.

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

6.5.3   Funding source - Traffic Operations budget - Signs Regulatory.

Legal Implications

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

6.7       The installation of any sign and markings must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.8       None identified

Implementation

6.9       Implementation dependencies - Implementation of this option is dependent on the Community Board approving it.

6.10    Implementation timeframe - Implementation depends on contractor's workload but anticipated to be completed within one month of Community Board approval.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the delineation of the intersection with give way markings and a continuity line.

·   Improves road safety as it clearly indicates the best place for traffic to yield for the purpose of giving way.

6.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no known disadvantages to this option.

 

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing (leave intersection uncontrolled)

Option Description

7.1       Do not install any traffic controls on the intersection of Mt Pleasant Road and Summit Road.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option 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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0. 

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0. 

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable. 

Legal Implications

7.9       Not Applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the Give Way control is not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing no control to remain in place after potential traffic safety issues have been recognised.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Implementation of this option is dependent on the Community Board approving it.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Implementation depends on contractor's workload but should be completed within one month of the Community Board approving it.

Option Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages have been recognised

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not resolve an identified crash risk.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Give Way Control

76

b

Location Plan

77

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

12.    Proposed Parking Changes - Fitzgerald Ave

Reference:

16/946015

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8875

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of P60 parking at 10 Fitzgerald Avenue in accordance with Attachment B. The site location within the road network is shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from the public.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Revokes any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue, commencing at a point 52 metres north of its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

2.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue, commencing at a point 52 metres north of its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install P60 parking restriction (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Creates consistency with existing P60 parking restriction in this general area

·     Improves parking turnover in an area where there is a higher demand for short term parking

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There have been recent concerns raised by a member of the public regarding kerbside parking outside 10 Fitzgerald Avenue. Kerbside parking is currently unrestricted in this area.

5.2       The location of 10 Fitzgerald Avenue within the road network is shown on Attachment A.

5.3       Vehicles are currently parking in the area outside 10 Fitzgerald Avenue for extended periods of time and up to an entire day. P60 parking spaces support regular parking turnover for the businesses in the area.

5.4       A P60 parking restriction is currently in place along the eastern side of Fitzgerald Avenue, commencing at 14 Fitzgerald Avenue, extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Ferry Road.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install P60 parking restriction (preferred option)

Option Description

Install P60 parking restriction outside 10 Fitzgerald Avenue as shown on Attachment B. This option affects two existing unrestricted kerbside parks.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       Affected property owners and businesses were advised of the recommended option by letter drop. The retail shop operating at 10 Fitzgerald Avenue supports the proposal.

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 $200, which includes the installation of signs and poles.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Creates consistency with existing P60 time limited parking restriction in this general area

·   Improves parking turnover in an area where there is a higher demand for short term parking

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing kerbside parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for parking improvements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the parking demand for shorter term (P60) parking.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Location Plan

84

b

Proposed P60 Parking Restriction

85

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

13.    Hagley/Ferrymead Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/970426

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve funding of applications for 2016 Neighbourhood Week events, and to set in place a process should any late applications need to be considered.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

1.         Approves funding of the following applications from its 2016/17 Neighbourhood Week Fund as set out below:

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

Bev Adams

Lunch

20-30

$150

Robin Arnold

Street Barbecue

40

$180

Jill Boanas

Street Barbecue

25

$100

Carol Brown

Sausage Sizzle

20-40

$80

Lena Buck

Picnic

100-150

$277

Gary Charmley

Barbecue

20

$100

Bernice Craig

Barbecue

12

$60

Amanda Cullen

Barbecue and spit roast

58-60

$240

Cindy Frew

Lunch

90-100

$115

Annette Hobby

Barbecue and picnic

35

$175

Margaret Jenkin

Barbecue lunch

25-30

$130

Liz Kerslake

Barbecue

40-60

$200

Max Lucas

Barbecue

30

$150

Fiona Miller

Morning tea/ picnic

100

$220

Jill Morris

Shared morning tea

100

$60

Steve Muir

Barbecue and garden working bee

60

$100

Helen Murray

Street party

100

$150

Andrea Petschner

Street barbecue

40

$180

Diana Proctor

Barbecue in local reserve

80

$200

Judy Stack

Street party

20-40

$100

Jennie Steele

Barbecue

30-40

$149

Caitlin Turner

Barbecue

30

$177

Trevor Walker

Barbecue

30

$127

Alan Warburton

Barbecue

16

$80

Total

$3,500

 

2.         Resolves to allow for any unspent funding to be used to support local neighbourhood events in the Hagley/Ferrymead ward throughout the remainder of the 2016/17 year.

3.         Sets in place a process should any late applications need to be considered.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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

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

4.4       By the closing date, 25 applications had been received.  The applications were sorted and assessed to ensure that they met the guidelines for the Neighbourhood Week events, and staff recommended an amount to be allocated to each application. One application did not meet the criteria and was referred to other funding. In making the recommendations staff have endeavoured to maintain consistency over the allocation recommendations according to the amounts applied for and the number of people estimated to be attending the events.

4.5       Last year staff completed an analysis of the distribution of applications across the ward and identified that certain areas; namely Central City, Woolston, Bromley and Phillipstown had a low application rate. This year staff approached individual groups and organisations in these areas encouraging applications and of the 11 new applications this year, seven were from these areas. Attached is a map showing the distribution of applications in 2015 and 2016.

4.6       At the time of writing the report, no late applications had been received.

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

4.8       At its meeting on 17 August 2016, the Board allocated $3,500 for Neighbourhood Week event.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley/Ferrymead - Neighbourhood Week Matrix - 2016

90

b

Neighbourhood Week Guidelines

91

c

Distribution of Hagley/Ferrymead 2015/16 Neighbourhood Week Applications

92

 

 

Signatories

Author

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Hagley/Ferrymead

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

14.    Application to the Hagley/Ferrymead 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Te Whare Roimata Trust - Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan

Reference:

16/1008441

Contact:

Nicola Eccleton

nicola.eccleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 5120

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00055838

Te Whare Roimata Trust

Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan

$7,500

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from Te Whare Roimata Trust for the Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan.

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 people affected and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board makes a grant of $6,000 to Te Whare Roimata Trust from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Inner City East and Linwood Village Revitalisation Plan.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$16,613

$4,500

$12,113

$6,113

 

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

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley/Ferrymead DRF 2016/17 Decision Matrix - Te Whare Roimata Trust

95

 

 

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

Nicola Eccleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Hagley/Ferrymead

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

15.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/968470

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Plan

Board members started reporting activities they are engaged in that contribute to achievement of the Community Board actions.  Staff continue to monitor and record activities and other actions that contribute to meeting the aspirations of the Community Board Plan.

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Plan 2015-16 is available on the Board's webpage.  http://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/community-boards/hagley-ferrymead/plan/

1.2       Upcoming Board Meetings and Commitments

·    Thursday 15 September 4pm, Joint Burwood/Pegasus, Shirley/Papanui and Hagley/Ferrymead Board Meeting, 53 Hereford Street

·    Wednesday 21 September, 3.30pm, Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Meeting, Boardroom, 180 Smith Street.

 

1.3      Upcoming Community Activities

 

·    Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust Annual General Meeting, Wednesday 14 September, 6.30pm, Room 10 Phillipstown Hub, 39 Nursery Road

 

2.   Consultation Calendar

Consultation page

Consultation dates

Draft Suburban Car Parking Policy - Issues and Options

18/08/2016 - 15/09/2016 5:00p.m.

Proposed amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015

15/08/2016 - 15/09/2016 5:00p.m.

 

3.   Funding Update

3.1       The balance of the community funds are as follows:

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - $12,113.

Youth Development Fund - $500.

3.2       Details of the allocated amounts are attached (Attachment A).

4.   Council Activities and Decisions

4.1       Shipping Containers Gone from Moa Point

After more than five years the shipping containers around Moa Bone Point have finally been removed. At Moa Bone Point, along Main Rd, remediation works have now been completed to a stage where the containers are no longer needed.

4.2       Rutherford’s Den Re-Opened

The spiritual home of New Zealand’s greatest scientist reopened on Saturday 27th August. Located in the Christchurch Arts Centre, it had been closed since the February 2011 earthquake.  The space has been strengthened and restored, and now boasts a raft of new multimedia, interactive presentations on Lord Rutherford, who worked there in the 1890s.

5.   Community Governance Team Activity

5.1       The Community Governance team recently hosted a Health and Safety workshop; a follow up to the Health and Safety Seminar held in June. This gave many community groups in the area an opportunity to work on their health and safety policy, and receive feedback. The groups that attended both these sessions have reported that they are feeling more confident in both meeting the requirements of the new Health and Safety legislation and ensuring their organisations are following best practice.

5.2       Planning for The Breeze Walking Festival is underway, with 51 walks planned in Christchurch and the surrounding districts. The festival begins on Saturday 24 September for two weeks, coinciding with the school holidays, and features a wide variety of walks catering for all ages, interests and fitness levels.

5.3       The Hagley/Ferrymead ward has received 25 funding applications for this year’s Neighbourhood Week in November. The applications are from across the ward with an increased number of applications from the Central, Woolston, Bromley and Linwood areas.

5.4       The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Governance Team is working with a number of local community groups to host a Community Development Conference at the end of October. The two day workshop will cover a range of topics related to Community Development, and host a range of speakers with different Community Development experience and expertise. It is hoped that up to 100 people may be able to attend.

 

 

6.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board 6 September 2016 - Funding Update Table

100

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald - Governance Support Officer

Barbara Strang - Community Board Advisor

Brenda Preston - Community Support Officer

Nicola Eccleton - Community Development Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Hagley/Ferrymead

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

06 September 2016

 

 

16.  Elected Member Information Exchange

 

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

 

 

 

17.  Question Under Standing Orders

 

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

 

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