Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 21 September 2016

Time:                                    3.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sara Templeton

Alexandra Davids

Joe Davies

Yani Johanson

Paul Lonsdale

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

 

 

15 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Barbara Strang

Personal Assistant

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

21 September 2016

 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 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.       Briefing........................................................................................................................... 15

STAFF REPORTS

CA     7.       Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection safety improvements......................................................................................................................................... 17

C       8.       Heathcote Combined Community Facility - Deed of Lease........................................ 41

C       9.       Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead......................... 57

C       10.     Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Intersection of Madras Street and Ely Street 67

C       11.     Proposed Electric Vehicle Charger Parking Restriction - Nayland Street, Sumner. 75

C       12.     Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Ensors Road, Outside Fulton Hogan Quarries 83

C       13.     Naming of the new Sumner Library and Community Facility................................... 93

C       14.     Request to remove street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue to allow siting of Rockfall Protection Structure..................................................................................................... 97

C       15.     Street Tree Removal Request - 133-135 Peterborough Street................................ 107

C       16.     Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report................................................. 117

B       17.     Elected Member Information Exchange.................................................................... 121

B       18.     Question Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 121 

 

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 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, 6 September 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

A representative of Spokes Canterbury will speak to the Board regarding Item 7 - Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue Intersection Safety Improvements. 

 

4.2

Dane Bell from the Sumner Pharmacy will speak to the Board regarding the Sumner Suburban Master Plan: Bus Stop Location.

 

4.3

James Clark will speak to the Board in support of agenda item 15 - Street Tree Removal Request: 133-135 Peterborough Street.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

 

Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

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

 

 

6 September 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

 

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00042

Part C

It was resolved on the motion of Alexandra Davids, seconded by Brenda Lowe-Johnson that the apology for absence from Joe Davies and the apology for lateness from Paul Lonsdale be accepted.

Alexandra Davids/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                         Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

The following declarations of interest were recorded regarding Item 13 of the agenda, Hagley/Ferrymead Neighbourhood Week 2016 – Funding Applications:

 

·     Sara Templeton declared an interest in the application for funding from Margaret Jenkin for a barbeque lunch.

·     Sara Templeton declared an interest in the application for funding from Judy Stack for a street party.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00043

That the minutes of the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 16 August 2016 be confirmed.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                         Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1          Francesca Bradley – Victoria Street Proposed Transport Changes

With the permission of the Board, an un-notified deputation was received from Francesca Bradley regarding her submission on the Victoria Street An Accessible City Streetscape Improvements and Transport Changes. Ms Bradley indicated her support for option one that was presented as part of the Initial consultation.  Item 8 refers.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Bradley for her deputation.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.   

 

Paul Lonsdale arrived at the meeting at 12:32 pm.

6.   Staff Briefings

 

6.1       Update from Land Information New Zealand

Jeremy Barr, Group Manager Canterbury Recovery, Land Information New Zealand was unable to attend the meeting.

6.2       Update from the Earthquake Commission

Keith Land, Head of Canterbury Land Settlement, Earthquake Commission (EQC) provided an update to the Board on EQC’s payments of increased liquefaction vulnerability (ILV) and increased flooding vulnerability (IFV) claims.

The Board was advised that EQC are currently on target to resolve remaining ILV and IFV claims by the end of 2016.

Mr Land indicated his wish to continue regular updates in the next electoral term.

6.3       Development in East Frame Residential

             Mark Riddell, Development Manager, Fletcher Living was unable to attend the meeting. Mr Riddell has scheduled to update the Board in November 2016.

6.4       Riccarton Bus Priority

             Lindsay Durham, Project Manager Transport, Dan Lucas, Construction Projects Divisional Manager, Fulton Hogan, Ross Julian, Junior Project Manager Three Waters and Waste and Fraser Scales, Project Engineer Downer provided a briefing to the Board on the Riccarton Bus Priority Works currently underway at the Riccarton Road/Deans Avenue Intersection.

             The Board were advised that work is likely to be completed by the end of October 2017.

             The Chairperson thanked the attendees for their briefing.

An adjournment from the meeting was called at 9.51am.

The meeting reconvened at 10.12am. 

 

7.   Bells Creek Upstream Works - Tree Removals

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board considered a report on Bells Creek Upstream Works – Tree Removals.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve 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.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00044

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board approve 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.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson/Paul Lonsdale                                                                                                                Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00045

Part B

 

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board requests staff to report back to the Board with options for public access to the proposed Linwood Lower Fields forested basin.

Sara Templeton/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                            Carried

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnson left the meeting at 10:31 am.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson returned to the meeting at 10:34 am.

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

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board considered a report on Victoria Street an Accessible City Streetscape Improvements and Transport Changes.

In its consideration of this report the Board:

-      Noted its concerns about the safety of the proposed shared bus and cycle lane at the intersection of Victoria and Kilmore Street in the vicinity of the Christchurch Casino.

-      Acknowledged the success of transitional/temporary treatments of public realm overseas for example in the 8-80 cities and suggests that similar treatments would be useful with this project.

-      Notes the recent petition by Generation Zero and the personal deputation at item 4.1 from Francesca Bradley and asks that the original plans be made available in the consideration process.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board recommend to Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee that adopt the scheme designs relating to the Victoria Street An Accessible City project as detailed on Attachment A of this report. 

 

Motion on Report

It was resolved on the motion of Yani Johanson, seconded by Brenda Lowe-Johnson that the Board recommends to the Council that a joint hearings panel be set up to hear submissions on the scheme designs relating to the Victoria Street An Accessible City project.

For:                           Member Johanson and Member Lowe-Johnson

Against:                 Chairperson Templeton, Member Davids and Member Lonsdale

The motion was declared lost.

 

 

Community Board Recommendation HFCB/2016/00046

Part A

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board recommend that the Infrastructure and Transport Committee adopt the scheme designs relating to the Victoria Street An Accessible City project as detailed on Attachment A of this report. 

Member Johanson and Member Lowe-Johnson requested that their vote against the motion be recorded. 

Paul Lonsdale/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                           Carried

 

Member Davids left the meeting at 11:18 am.

 

Member Davids returned to the meeting at 11:19 am.

9.   Proposed CBD 30kph Speed Limit Threshold Enhancements

 

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. 

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00047

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         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.

2.         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.

3.         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. 

Paul Lonsdale/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                              Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00048

Member Johanson moved by way of amendment:

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board requests staff to consider more creative and colourful 30 kilometre per hour speed limit threshold treatments including natural elements in this instance and report back to the Board.

The amendment was seconded by Alexandra Davids and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.

Member Johanson/Member Davids                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

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

 

The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board were advised that the report on Proposed No Stopping Restrictions – Intersection of Shortland Street and Tahuna Street had been withdrawn from the meeting and is being referred to the Burwood/Pegasus Community Board.

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00049

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

Part C

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

Member Lonsdale/Member Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                    Carried

 

 

12. Proposed Parking Changes - Fitzgerald Ave

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00050

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

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Revoke 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.         Approve 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.

Member Lonsdale/Member Johanson                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

13. Hagley/Ferrymead Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00051

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

Part C

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

1.         Approve 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.         Resolve 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.         Set in place a process should any late applications need to be considered.

Member Lonsdale/Member Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

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

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00052

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

Part C

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.

Member Lowe-Johnson/Member Johanson                                                                                                  Carried

 

Member Lonsdale left the meeting at 12:32 pm.

 

15. Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board receive the report.

 

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00053

Part B

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

Part C

2.         Makes a grant of $1500 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association incorporated towards Estuary Fest.

3.         Makes a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Sumner Community Residents Association towards Community Development, SCRA Hub and Contractors’ Fees.

Sara Templeton/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                            Carried

 

16. Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

16.1    Homeless Hui

    The Board received information on the work of the homeless hui.

16.2    Linwood  Park
             A quick clean up of Linwood Park in planned to take place on the 17 September with Keep              Christchurch Beautiful.

16.3    Linwood Woolston Aquatic Project

    The Board noted the lack of visible progress on the Linwood Woolston aquatic project and its     disappointment at their lack of involvement to date.

16.4    Maintenance Contracts

Community Board Resolved HFCB/2016/00054

The Board requests a review of maintenance contracts for Woolston, Linwood, Phillipstown, Sumner and the river corridor similar to the one recently conducted by Development Christchurch Limited for New Brighton.

Member Johanson/Member Davids                                                                                                      Carried

 

17. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 12.49pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 21  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Sara Templeton

Chairperson

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

6.        Briefing

Reference:

16/1066181

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

 

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

 

 

 

Regular Update

Jeremy Barr

Land Information New Zealand

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

7.        Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection safety improvements

Reference:

16/963998

Contact:

Megan Reid

Megan.reid@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to:

1.1.1   Recommend to the Council that it approves all traffic control changes and kerb alignment changes at the intersection of Gasson Street, Madras Street and Moorhouse Avenue as detailed on Attachment A of this report.

1.1.2   Recommend to the Council that it approves all traffic control changes and kerb alignment changes on Gasson Street, Madras Street and Moorhouse Avenue as detailed on Attachment A of this report.

1.1.3   Approve all parking and stopping restriction changes on Gasson Street, Madras Street and Moorhouse Avenue as detailed on Attachment A of this report.

1.1.4   Approve the tree removals, as detailed on Attachment A of this report.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated. This intersection has an identified safety issue and has been ranked using the safer systems approach. The safer system contributes to network efficiency, saves lives and reduces injuries.  This intersection is ranked 1 out of all Christchurch High Risk intersections.

1.3       Consultation on the proposal has been completed and a summary of the consultation feedback can be found in Attachment B.

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 the project being a safety improvement project which will have positive outcomes for road users with little to none anticipated impacts to traffic flows.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board, recommends to Council that it:

1.         Revoke all intersection traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Moorhouse Avenue, Gasson Street and Madras Street.

2.         Revoke all traffic controls on Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 164 metres.

3.         Revoke all traffic controls on Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Carlyle Street.

4.         Revoke all traffic controls on Moorhouse Avenue, with the exception of the No Cruising prohibition, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street and Madras Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 108 metres.

5.         Revoke all traffic controls on Moorhouse Avenue, with the exception of the No Cruising prohibition, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street and Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way.

6.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes at the intersection of Moorhouse Avenue, Gasson Street and Madras Street as detailed on Attachment A.

7.         Approve that the intersection of Moorhouse Avenue, Gasson Street and Madras Street be controlled by traffic signals in accordance with the Land Transport Act – Traffic Control Devices: 2004 as detailed on Attachment A.

8.         Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes on Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street and Madras Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 108 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

9.         Approve that the U turn movement be prohibited on the Gasson Street approach to its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue.

10.       Approve that the U turn movement be prohibited on the Moorhouse Avenue east approach to its intersection with Madras Street.

11.       Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes on Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street and Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way, as detailed on Attachment A.

12.       Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes on Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Carlyle Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

13.       Approve the road marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes on Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 164 metres, as detailed on Attachment A.

14.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Moorhouse Avenue west approach left turn movement, at the left turn slip lane approaching Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

15.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Moorhouse Avenue east approach left turn movement, at the left turn slip lane approaching Gasson Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

16.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Gasson Street approach left turn movement, at the left turn slip lane approaching Moorhouse Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

17.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Moorhouse Avenue west approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

18.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Moorhouse Avenue east approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Gasson Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

19.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004, on the Gasson Street approach left turn slip lane at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, as detailed on Attachment A.

20.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 164 metres. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the west side kerb line and west side parking lane, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

21.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 108 metres. This special vehicle lane is to be located between the left turn vehicle lane and straight through vehicle lane, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

22.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 108 metres. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the south side kerb line and the south side parking lane, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

23.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Washington Way and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Gasson Street. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the south side kerb line and the south side parking lane, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

24.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the north side parking lane, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

25.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the east side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Carlyle Street. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the east side kerb line, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

26.       Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of northbound cycles only, be established on the west side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Carlyle Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue. This special vehicle lane is to be located against the west side kerb line, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

 

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

27.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 72 metres.

28.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

29.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way.

30.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way.

31.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 61 metres.

32.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 164 metres.

33.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Carlyle Street.

34.       Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue.

35.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 72 metres.

36.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

37.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

38.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at a point 14 metres east of its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

39.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at a point 27 metres east of its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres.

40.       Approve that a Bus stop be created on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at a point 36 metres east of its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

41.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at a point 49 metres east of its intersection with Madras Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of five metres.

42.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Gasson Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 69 metres.

43.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Moorhouse Avenue, commencing at a point 139 metres east of its intersection with Gasson Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Washington Way.

44.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 96 metres.

45.       Approve that a Bus stop be created on the west side of Madras Street, commencing at a point 96 metres north of its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

46.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Madras Street, commencing at a point 120 metres north of its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 44 metres.

47.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 61 metres.

48.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Carlyle Street.

49.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Gasson Street, commencing at its intersection with Carlyle Street, and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Moorhouse Avenue.

50.       Approve the removal of seven trees as detailed on Attachment A.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install the Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection- safety improvements (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 providing a two stage pedestrian crossing facility and dedicated cycle crossing facility on the eastern crossing of Moorhouse Avenue;

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by providing raised zebra pedestrian crossings on the slip lanes on the north west, south east and south west corners of the Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection;

·     Improves visibility of the traffic signals by installing overhead mast arms and additional traffic signals to reduce red light running;

·     Encourages cycling by providing specific cycle facilities.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes five parking spaces on Madras Street and two parking spaces on Moorhouse Avenue;

·     Removal of seven trees;

·     Does not allow U-turns on Gasson Street travelling northbound to turn southbound or on Moorhouse Avenue for vehicles travelling westbound to turn eastbound.

4.4       Community Feedback

4.4.1   Community engagement on the Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection- safety improvements was undertaken from Thursday 23 June to Monday 11 July 2016.

4.4.2   Subsequent to the consultation, it has been identified that the proposal requires the removal of seven trees, shown on the plan in Appendix A.  The removals are required due to realignment of islands within the intersection.  Their removal was not identified in the consultation, however it should be noted that the scheme cannot be completed without their removal.  Relocation of the trees was considered however due to the declining condition of six of the trees is not proposed.  Four of the trees are in poor condition, two in fair (below average) condition, and one in good condition.

4.4.3   A total of 450 leaflets were hand delivered to Allen Street, Eaton Place, Mortimer Place, Rope Street, Southwark Street, Williams Street and Washington Way and sections of Barbadoes Street, Brisbane Street, Buchan Street, Byron Street, Carlyle Street, Dundas Street, Gasson Street, Madras Street, Manchester Street, Moorhouse Avenue, Pilgrim Place and St Asaph Street. The leaflet was also sent to 212 key stakeholders and 267 absentee owners.  A copy was sent to Ara Institute of Canterbury and was distributed electronically to staff and students.

4.4.4   During the course of the engagement, Council received comments and feedback from 14 individual residents and six organisational representatives. Seventeen respondents were in support of the safety improvements, one respondent was not in support and two did not state their preference. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Moorhouse Avenue forms part of the arterial road network for Christchurch and provides one of the primary east-west links in the central city along the southern boundary of the central city. Gasson Street provides a connection to Brougham Street to the south which forms part of State Highway 73.

5.2       The intersection improvement scheme currently being planned for Gasson Street/Madras Street/Moorhouse Avenue looks to improve the safety for all road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.

5.3       With the Ara Institute campus just down from Moorhouse Avenue on Madras St the intersection designs are acknowledging the possible upgrade of Madras Street.

5.4       The corridor will remain one of the principle routes between the inner city and the southern suburbs of Sydenham, Cashmere, Somerfield, Spreydon, Hoon Hay and Halswell.

5.5       Moorhouse Avenue has generally been constructed as a six lane divided carriageway with turn lanes provided on the approaches to all intersections. On Moorhouse Avenue, at its intersection with Gasson Street and Madras Street, there are right turn lanes on both approaches that operate under signal control. The left turn lanes have been constructed as slip lanes.

5.6       Moorhouse Avenue forms part of the arterial road network and represents the preferred route for freight movements. Madras Street has been classified as a main distributor road with one of its functions being to accommodate delivery and service vehicles accessing the central city core. Moorhouse Avenue east of Madras Street, Gasson Street and Madras Street form part of the over-dimension route network.

5.7       Moorhouse Avenue has a cycle lane on both sides on the road that is generally about 1.5 metres wide. On Gasson Street, between the railway and Moorhouse Avenue, there are cycle lanes and no stopping lines marked on each side of the road.

5.8       In the morning peak the highest cycle volume is north from Gasson Street to Madras Street followed by the left turn from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street. During the evening peak there is still a high volume of cyclists from Gasson Street to Madras Street but there are higher through movements on Moorhouse Avenue than in the morning.

5.9       The highest pedestrian crossing volumes were recorded during the lunch time period 12:00-1:00 pm. The pattern of pedestrian movements is generally towards the city and Ara Institute in the morning and the reverse in the evening. At lunchtime, the crossing movements are balanced.

5.10    Although there is no formal crossing on the eastern side of the intersection the pedestrian and cycle survey recorded a number of people crossing there rather than using the longer signalised route. This indicates the presence of a pedestrian desire line.

5.11    As cyclists are not able to travel south from Madras Street with the current signal arrangements they need to use the pedestrian facilities to cross Moorhouse Avenue.

5.12    With the redevelopment of the site on the south west quadrant of the intersection it is expected that there will be an increased demand for pedestrians to cross Moorhouse Avenue.

5.13    There have been a number of crashes recorded at the Gasson Street, Madras Street and Moorhouse Avenue intersection. Of the 30 crossing and turning crashes, 20 involved vehicles going through red lights. 19 of these crashed involved vehicles approaching the intersection of Moorhouse Avenue, with a relatively even split between the eastern and western approaches.

Proposal (Option1)

5.14    Due to strong pedestrian demand, it is proposed to create a two stage pedestrian crossing facility on the eastern side of the intersection. This will maintain traffic flow, whilst allowing the pedestrian movement.

5.15    A separate cycle crossing facility is proposed on the eastern side of the intersection. This will allow cyclists to travel south down Gasson Street from the north-east side of the intersection.

5.16    In order to promote safety for cyclists a cycle lane on Madras Street is proposed. Hook turn boxes are proposed around the intersection. Hook turn boxes allow cyclists to wait in a designated area to turn right. Existing cycle lanes on Moorhouse Avenue and Gasson Street will be widened to current standard width.

5.17    To improve safety for pedestrians raised zebra crossings are proposed on the slip lanes on the north-west, south-west and south east corners of the intersection.

5.18    To address red lighting running the proposed scheme includes the introduction of overhead mast arms and additional ground level signals to ensure that signals are clearly visible to drivers on all approaches.

5.19    On the east side of Madras Street five parking spaces are proposed to be removed. This will allow for a change in alignment of the traffic lanes to tie in with future plans for Madras Street.

5.20    Two parking spaces are proposed to be removed on the north side of Moorhouse Avenue to the east of the entrance to the Countdown supermarket. This will allow for the left turning lane into Madras Street to be extended and increase the number of vehicles that can queue in the left turn lane.

5.21    The right turn lane on Moorhouse Avenue into Gasson Street is proposed to be extended to allow more vehicles to queue. This will result in the loss of three trees.

5.22    The pedestrian refuge islands on the north-west, south-west and south east corners of the intersection are proposed to be realigned to allow for the reallocation of lane widths. This will result in the loss of a tree on the south-west refuge island and the loss of a tree on the south-east refuge island.

5.23    No-U turn signs are proposed to be installed on Gasson Street and on Moorhouse Avenue west bound traffic turning east bound due to safety concerns.

5.24    The realignment of islands within the intersection and on the western approach to the intersection require the removal of seven trees.  An independent assessment has been undertaken by an arborist, Attachment B, which covers a condition assessment for each tree.  Of the trees to be removed the assessment shows four to be in poor condition, two to be in fair condition, and one in good condition.


 

6.   Option 1 - (preferred)  Install the Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection- safety improvements

Option Description

6.1       It is proposed to create a two stage pedestrian crossing facility and a separate cycle crossing facility on the eastern side of the intersection. This will maintain traffic flow, whilst allowing the pedestrian movement. A cycle lane on Madras Street is proposed and hook turn boxes are proposed around the intersection. Existing cycle lanes on Moorhouse Avenue and Gasson Street are proposed be widened to current standard width. Raised zebra crossings are proposed on the slip lanes on the north-west, south-west and south east corners of the intersection. The proposed scheme includes the introduction of overhead mast arms and additional ground level signals. The left turning lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Madras Street and the right turn lane from Moorhouse Avenue into Gasson Street are proposed to be extended. The pedestrian refuge islands on the north-west, south-west and south east corners of the intersection are proposed to be realigned to allow for the reallocation of lane widths. No-U turn signs are proposed to be installed on Gasson Street and on Moorhouse Avenue west bound traffic turning east bound due to safety concerns.  The proposal will require the removal of seven trees.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report due to the project being a safety improvement which will have positive outcomes for road users with little to none anticipated impacts to traffic flows.

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this low rating.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       Commuters, local businesses and Ara staff and students are specifically affected by this option due to their close proximity and high usage of the intersection.  Their views are outlined below.

6.7       Feedback was received from Thursday 23 June to Monday 11 July 2016, with 20 responses received.

6.7.1   17 respondents were in support of the safety improvements. Their feedback included:

·    Good idea

·    Support the proposal

·    Changes suggested are an improvement

·    The eastern pedestrian and cycle crossing will be a huge benefit

·    Support for the removal of car parks

·    Suggestion to increase no parking zones around the intersection to improve visibility for wheelchair users and reduce the speed limit to 30km/h.

Project team response:

There are “no-stopping” lines painted on all approaches to the intersection and to the pedestrian crossing points. Parking is only permitted in designated bays that do not obstruct sight lines.

Christchurch City Council has no plans to modify the speed limit on Moorhouse Avenue, Gasson Street or Madras Street as these form part of the arterial road network where priority is given to vehicle movement.

·    Requests for a crossing on Madras Street to assist Ara students crossing

Project team response:

An improved mid-block crossing facility on Madras Street, between the Ara Institute and Countdown supermarket, will be considered as part of a future separate project for Madras Street improvements.           

6.7.2   One respondent was not in support of the safety improvements. Their feedback included:

·    Concerns about safety including the raised zebra crossings and realignment of the eastern crossing

Project team response:

The recommended minimum Safe Stopping Distance for a road with a 50km/h speed limit is 55m. This is available on each of the approaches to the proposed pedestrian crossing points over the left turn slip lanes.

The slip lanes are proposed to have raised zebra crossings. Cars must legally stop for pedestrians on zebra crossings and the raised zebra platform crossings are proposed so that drivers have to reduce their speed in the left turn slip lanes.

The angled crossing is similar to those already installed at other signalised intersections around Christchurch and is not considered unusual.  The proposed signal plan will ensure that the crossing is fully protected against vehicle movements.

6.7.3   Two respondents did not state their preference and included the following feedback:

·    Concerns about specifics of the plan such as extending paint for the cycle lane

Project team response:

We will investigate extending the green surfacing of the cycle lane on Madras Street to the entrance to the Countdown supermarket to highlight this area to vehicles.

·    Requests for the crossings/slip lanes to be signalised and realignment of the eastern crossing

Project team response:

Traffic modelling carried out shows that signalising the left turns at this intersection would have adverse impacts on the wider traffic network and could lead to safety issues around left turning cars queuing and blocking the straight through lane.

The slip lanes are proposed to have raised zebra crossings. Cars must legally stop for pedestrians on zebra crossings and the raised zebra platform crossings are proposed so that drivers have to reduce their speed in the left turn slip lanes.  Various options for the alignment of the pedestrian crossing were considered during the concept design stage. The proposed option was selected as being the safest overall for pedestrians and motor vehicles.   

7.   Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.2       Cost of Implementation – The total budget in the LTP is $928 070.

7.3       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.4       Funding source – 2015-2025 Long Term Plan

Legal Implications

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

7.6       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 the Community Boards includes the resolution of parking restrictions, tree removal, traffic control devices, and pedestrian crossings.

7.7       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 

7.8       If approval of this proposal by the Community Board and Council not received – the safety improvements will not be able to be achieved

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies - Approval by Community Board and Council.

7.10    Implementation timeframe – Anticipate that construction completed by the end of the 2017 financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by providing a two stage pedestrian crossing facility and dedicated cycle crossing facility on the eastern crossing of Moorhouse Avenue;

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by providing raised zebra pedestrian crossings on the slip lanes on the north west, south east and south west corners of the Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection;

·   Improves visibility of the traffic signals by installing overhead mast arms and additional traffic signals to reduce red light running;

·   Encourages cycling by providing specific cycle facilities.

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes five parking spaces on Madras Street and two parking spaces on Moorhouse Avenue;

·   Removal of seven trees;

·   Does not allow U-turns on Gasson Street travelling northbound to turn southbound or on Moorhouse Avenue for vehicles travelling westbound to turn eastbound.

8.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       The Gasson Street, Madras Street, Moorhouse Avenue intersection will remain the same.

Significance

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

8.3       This option was not consulted on.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       This option was not consulted on and would not deliver the required intersection safety improvements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it does not address cyclist and pedestrian safety issues.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – not applicable.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

8.9       Funding source – 2015-2025 Long Term Plan. Investigations works carried out to date.

Legal Implications

8.10    None

Risks and Mitigations  

8.11    If approved this option would this intersection would continue to realise a high crash rate.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

8.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Parking is retained on Madras Street and Moorhouse Avenue.

·   No trees are removed.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety issue for pedestrians or cyclists.

·   It does not address the lack of pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities on the eastern side of the intersection.

·   It will not address the overall safety concerns at the intersection.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Moorhouse Avenue/Gasson Street/Madras Street - Scheme Plan for Community Board/Council Approval

30

b

Moorhouse Avenue/Gasson Street/Madras Street - Arboricultural Report

31

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project management Transport

Lori Rankin - Consultation Leader

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

8.        Heathcote Combined Community Facility - Deed of Lease

Reference:

16/836469

Contact:

Kathy Jarden

Kathy.Jarden@ccc.govt.nz

941-8203

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the granting of a lease of the new community building known as the Heathcote Combined Community Facility at 45 Bridle Path Road, Heathcote to the Heathcote Valley Community Association Incorporated organisation.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

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 staff assessment.

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.         Approve the granting of a Deed of Lease to the Heathcote Valley Community Association Incorporated subject to section 61(2A)(a) of the Reserves Act 1977 over part of the land being legally described as Pt RS 41625, a local purpose (community building) reserve in accordance with Gazette Notice 2000 p479 for a maximum term of nine (9) years broken into three (3) terms for the purpose of a community centre and volunteer library referred to as the Heathcote Combined Community Facility located at 45 Bridle Path Road, Heathcote, Christchurch.

2.         Approve that the Property Consultancy Manager conclude and administer the terms and conditions of the Deed of Lease.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.7 Support community based management of community facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Enter into a Deed of Lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Not grant a lease

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Local community has control and management of their community facility.

·     Re-establishment of a neighbourhood library run by community volunteers.

·     Gives the community a sense of ownership.

·     Provides a local presence in deterring untoward activity.

·     No impact to current workload of the Council’s community facilities advisors therefore no direct staffing costs.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Financial responsibilities to Council that come with building ownership without having a direct revenue stream from the income earned through activities at the community centre; i.e. building insurance, asset management planning, asset renewals and structural repairs and replacements.

·     The local community are faced with operational and maintenance costs from the outset with no guarantee of revenue to cover these costs. 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

5.1       Heathcote Volunteer Library

·   The Library on Martindales Road was demolished due to extensive earthquake damage.

·   The Volunteer Library is currently in hiatus awaiting the rebuild of the new facility.

5.2       Heathcote Community Centre

·   The Community Centre located at Heathcote Domain was primarily used by the local play centre; the building suffered extensive earthquake damage.

New Construction

5.3       A Karakia and ground breaking ceremony was held in late June 2016.

5.4       The facility is currently under construction.

Expression of Interest

5.5       An Expression of Interest (EOI) process was carried out by the Council’s Leasing Consultancy Team. 

5.6       All community stakeholders identified in the initial Project Initiation Brief were sent an information pack and public advertising was also conducted generating an additional three requests for information.

5.7       A meeting was arranged by community stakeholders on Monday, 2 May 2016 to seek clarification on the EOI process.  At that meeting Council officers agreed to extend the length of time for submissions to 6 July 2016.

5.8       Key Heathcote community stakeholders indicated at that meeting that a proposal would be submitted by the Heathcote Valley Community Association (the “Community Association”) as the members of various organisations within the community were all members of the Community Association.  

5.9       Only one proposal was received for consideration, that being the submission of the Community Association.  Refer Attachment A.

Delegations

5.10    The Council has delegated to Community Boards the authority to grant leases or licences over reserves pursuant to section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977. 

5.11    Section 61(2A) of the Reserves Act permits the leasing authority to grant a lease for a term not exceeding 33 years, with or without a right of renewal, perpetual or otherwise for the purpose of local purpose community building leases.

Public Advertising

5.12    There is no requirement to publicly advertise the granting of a new lease where the Local Purpose Reserve is vested in the administering body.  The administering body may lease any or all of the vested local purpose reserve to any voluntary organisation or society (whether incorporated or not) for the purpose of a community building.

6.   Option 1 – Enter into a Deed of Lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Formalise Deed of Lease between the Council and the Heathcote Valley Community Association Incorporated over the Heathcote Combined Community Facility to be built at 45 Bridle Path Road on the Heathcote Domain as shown in the plans in Attachment B.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The Heathcote Valley residents are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have a replacement community facility.  Their views are supportive of this request.

6.5       Consultation with the local community commenced in September 2013.  Key community stakeholders were identified and the process to determine a suitable site was agreed.

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 – the normal document preparation fees of $250 plus GST will not be charged to the Association; other non-chargeable costs include staff time and costs in running the RFP. 

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the Trust will be responsible for internal building maintenance and operating costs.  The cost of building insurance premiums will be met by the asset owner, Customer & Community Group – Recreation & Sports Unit.  The recovery of the building insurance premiums will be reviewed on term renewal taking into account the Association’s financial capacity to meet those costs.  The rationale being that the Council wishes to build capacity with the community to operate the facility.  The Community Association will be responsible public liability insurance premiums and for the cost of insuring their chattels.

6.9       Funding source – Council has allocated funds for the rebuild with proceeds of the insurance claims for the former library and the community centre allocated to this project.

6.10    The proposed annual rental is $1.00 to be reviewed on term renewal in accordance with any policy the Council has in place at the time for setting rentals to community groups.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Deed of Lease will be prepared by the Council’s Legal Services team.

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There is a risk that the Community Association may not have the financial resources for ongoing operational costs.  To mitigate this risk, Council officers across the Ward are supporting and guiding the Association with regard to funding and operational requirements.  The Community Association may need to make application to Council or other funding agencies to cover initial start-up costs.

6.13    An additional risk is that the Community Association’s primary purpose is not the management of community facilities although it does have a social well-being element.  To mitigate this risk the Community Association intends to appoint appropriate staff/volunteers to oversee the day to day management of the community centre.  Council officers experienced in the management of community facilities are also available to provide advice on setting up booking systems, terms and hire conditions, etc.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Agreement and execution of Deed of Lease document and issue of Code Compliance Certificate when the building is constructed.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – up to six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Local community has control and management of their community facility.

·   Re-establishment of a neighbourhood library run by community volunteers.

·   Gives the community a sense of ownership.

·   Provides a local presence in deterring untoward activity.

·   No impact to current workload of the Council’s community facilities advisors therefore no direct staffing costs.

 

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Financial responsibilities to Council that come with building ownership without having a direct revenue stream from the income earned through activities at the community centre; i.e. building insurance, asset management planning, asset renewals and structural repairs and replacements.  The cost of building insurance premiums is yet to be determined.

·   The local community are faced with operational and maintenance costs from the outset with no guarantee of revenue to cover these costs. 

7.   Option 2 – Not Grant a Lease

Option Description

7.1       Not grant a lease and manage the facility using existing Council Community Facility Advisors.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Heathcote Valley residents are specifically affected by this option due to their engagement in the process and desire to have control of the facility.  Their views are not supportive of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – not supporting community based management of the facility

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – costs of Council staff to manage the facility

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – change to Council’s levels of service

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Council staff would be required to manage bookings, collect fees, carry out maintenance, and distribute keys for access to the facility.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – operational and maintenance costs would be the responsibility of Council

7.8       Funding source – budgets would need to be included in Council’s annual plans.

7.9       The Council does not have specific budget or the ability to reprioritise existing budget to cover the costs of running an additional community centre or providing a local library to the area residents.

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk that if the Council took over management and control of the facility that the residents of this community could become disenfranchised with Council and lose their sense of empowerment.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - construction completion and handover to Council employees to manage.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – up to six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council receives revenue from bookings which can be applied to operational expenditures.

·   The local community would not have to raise revenue or seek council funding through grant allocation to pay for administration, public liability and contents insurance, electricity, cleaning and other maintenance costs required in the operation of a combined community facility.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Local community has no control and management of their community facility.

·   Community does not have a sense of ownership.

·   Impact to current workload of the Council’s Community Facilities Advisors in managing bookings, collecting hire fees, carrying out building maintenance and cleaning.  Local service centre staff may be required to be the guardian of building keys as is the case with other council managed community facilities.

·   Possible loss of provision of services within the community such as the volunteer library.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Heathcote Combined Community Facility - Application Expression of Interest

47

b

Lease Plan

54

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Recreation and Sports

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

9.        Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Hagley / Ferrymead

Reference:

16/912696

Contact:

Brenda O'Donoghue

CityStreetsTrafficEngineers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at existing bus stops located at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street) and 250 Gloucester Street.  To approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at a bus stop that is proposed to be relocated to 132-140 Kilmore Street.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Councils Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board resolve to approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

b.         250 Gloucester Street, and

c.         132-140 Kilmore Road.  This is subject to the successful approval by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee to approve the bus stop at the same location.  The approval of this bus stop will be known by 20 September 2016.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - The preferred option, install a bus passenger shelter at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street), 250 Gloucester Street, and 132-140 Kilmore Street, as described in Section 6 of this report.

·     Option 2 - Do nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Protection from weather,

·     Seating provided within the shelter, and

·     Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

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

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop locations presented in this report due to the average weekday passenger boardings (ave. pax/day), as indicated in the following list:

·   46 ave. pax/day = 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street),

·   43 ave. pax/day = 250 Gloucester Street, and

·   35 ave. pax/day = 132-140 Kilmore Street.  The bus is currently located under temporary authorisation at 150 Kilmore Street.  Information regarding the relocation of the bus stop to 132-140 Kilmore Street has been prepared as part of a separate report.  Due to location of the bus stop falling within the area that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has the delegated authority to approve parking restrictions, the bus stop report has as such been submitted to this committee for approval.

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

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

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

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

5.6       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties.  The consultation period for all shelters proposed occurred from Wednesday 10 August 2016 to Friday 26 August 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished feedback has been received from some of the occupants of 250 Gloucester Street indicating approval.  No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners and/or occupiers of the proposed shelter locations on St Asaph Street or Kilmore Street.

5.7       There is the potential for the proposed shelters on St Asaph Street and Kilmore Street to come under the operation of Adshel, which would mean these shelter would have advertising on them.  If Adshel wish to pursue these sites they are required to submit an application to council that is relevant to the applicable bylaw, and polices concerning structures on street and advertising on bus passenger shelters.  If Adshel are to receive approval, they will cover the cost of the shelter purchase, install, maintenance and repairs.  However, no agreement has been reached with Adshel concerning the St Asaph and Kilmore Street sites.  Consequently this report assumes the shelters will be council owned and operated.


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at existing bus stops located at 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street) and 250 Gloucester Street.  To install a bus passenger shelter at a bus stop that is proposed to be relocated to 132-140 Kilmore Street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter.  A consultation notice and feedback form was mailed or ‘letter dropped’ to each property listed below on 10 August 2016, requesting the owners or occupiers approval or objection to the bus shelter at the bus stop outside the property they own or occupy.  The consultation process closed on 26 August 2016.

·   St Asaph Street shelter:  21 Ferry Road (Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology, and Ministry Of Education),

·   Gloucester Street shelter:  250 Gloucester Street (inclusive of units 1 to 20), and

·   Kilmore Street shelter:  132 to 140 Kilmore Street.

6.5       The only feedback received has come from the tenants of units 6, 9 and 14 of 250 Gloucester Street, who have returned their feedback form indicating approval.  No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners and/or occupiers of the proposed shelter locations on St Asaph Street or Kilmore Street.

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 - The estimated cost to supply and install three bus passenger shelters, plus additional bus stop upgrade work will cost about $27,000.  Note, as per Section 5.7, if Adshel were to pursue and receive approval for the St Asaph and Kilmore Street sites, the cost would only be for the Gloucester Street shelter.  This would reduce the cost to about $9,000.

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

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Protection from weather,

·   Seating provided within the shelter,

·   Additional seating provided outside shelter,

·   Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport, and

·   Provide a positive contribution to the overall streetscape.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 21 Ferry Road (bus stop on St Asaph Street)

64

b

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 250 Gloucester Street

65

c

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 132-140 Kilmore Street

66

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

10.    Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Intersection of Madras Street and Ely Street

Reference:

16/966134

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 Madras Street and Ely Street as shown on Attachment A. The intersection is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

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 approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Madras Street, commencing at its intersection with Ely Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions at the intersection of Madras Street and Ely Street (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 Madras Street and Ely Street.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes one on street parking space.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a recent concern raised by a member of the public regarding the operation of Madras Street and Ely Street. The intersection is an uncontrolled intersection, with priority given to Madras Street. Madras Street is one way for north bound traffic and is classified as a Major Arterial and Ely Street classified as a Local Road within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

5.2       Vehicles approaching the intersection from Ely Street can have limited visibility due to cars parked on Madras 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 no recorded crashes from 2006-2016.

 


 

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

Option Description

Install No Stopping Restrictions at the intersection of Madras Street and Ely Street as shown on Attachment A.6.2   This option removes one kerbside parking space outside 372 Madras Street. Two kerb side parking spaces on Ely Street are available outside this property. One kerbside parking space remains available outside 370 Madras 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 $100 to install road markings.

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection of Madras Street and Ely Street.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes one on street parking space.

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 to 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

72

b

Location Plan

73

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

11.    Proposed Electric Vehicle Charger Parking Restriction - Nayland Street, Sumner

Reference:

16/969776

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 parking restrictions to support the operation of electric vehicle (EV) chargers in Sumner as shown on Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the proposed installation of electric vehicle chargers by Orion New Zealand Limited, and in support of the Christchurch Energy Action Plan.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

1.         Revoke any existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Nayland Street, commencing at a point 17m northwest of its intersection with Wakefield Avenue, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 55m.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Nayland Street be restricted to 90 degree angle parking, restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes at any time and reserved for electric vehicles for the purpose of charging their batteries only, commencing at a point 20.6 metres northwest of its intersection with Wakefield Avenue, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 5.5m.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Nayland Street be restricted to 90 degree angle parking, commencing at a point 26 metres northwest of its intersection with Wakefield Avenue, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 47m.

 

 

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 Electric Vehicle Charger Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries.

·     Provides two new 90 degree unrestricted car parks to maintain existing kerbside parking supply

·     Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No identified disadvantages – reduction of parking supply has been mitigated by providing additional two parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       In October 2015 the Christchurch City Council (CCC) adopted the Christchurch Energy Action Plan. The action plan includes CCC programme areas of work relating to encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. It is considered that when residents see publicly accessible electric vehicle charging infrastructure being available, that they may feel more comfortable about the purchase and use of an electric vehicle.

5.2       With the rapid improvement in electric vehicle technology, we are seeing an increase in the range and affordability of electric vehicles for use in corporate fleets and by private individuals. Developments are already underway to provide charging infrastructure for electric vehicles travelling out of Christchurch, which will further support the uptake of these vehicles.

5.3       Council in conjunction with Orion New Zealand Limited is proposing to install electric vehicle chargers at a number of locations in Banks Peninsula and Christchurch.

5.4       Sumner was identified as a strategic location for an electric vehicle charger to be installed. Two electric vehicle parks are proposed on Nayland Street opposite the new Sumner Library, Community Facility and Museum as shown on Attachment A. This location was selected based on proximity to a suitable supply of electricity, high profile, and for ease of locating and access for electric vehicle users.

5.5       The electric vehicle parks are restricted for the use of electric vehicles only for the purpose of charging their battery only and for a restricted maximum period of sixty minutes. The time limit restriction enables a turnover of electric vehicles within these spaces. The restrictions are proposed to operate at any time, to support around the clock access to the chargers.

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install electric vehicle charger and 90 degree angle parking restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

Install parking restrictions to a maximum period of 60 minutes at any time and reserved for electric vehicles for the purpose of charging their batteries only as shown on Attachment A.6.2    Since the proposed parks are only available for electric vehicles a further two unrestricted 90 degree angle parks have been created, resulting in no change to existing on street parking supply. The two additional 90 degree parks have been made available by reducing the existing access way width at 26 Nayland Street. Rock remediation works are planned at this property and the reduced access way width allows for vehicle access for future maintenance work and removal of any rock.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Following a meeting with representatives from Sumner Residents’ Association, Sumner Environmental Group and a Local Business Owner on 22 August 2016, the proposal outlined on Attachment A was generally met with support.

6.6       There were several questions regarding the substation location shown on Attachment A. The Orion Kiosk (Sub Station) is required for the power supply for the new library and replaced the old substation that was located on Wakefield Avenue. It is not possible to rebuild it on the original site as this is now part of the protective bund being built. Originally the site was 10m north from the end of the bund on the site of #26 Nayland Street. The substation was moved to be immediately in front of the bund and the bund was moved further back to accommodate the kiosk. This avoids the kiosk occupying any additional land on the 26 Nayland site.

6.7       Regardless of the substation location on Nayland Street, it does not affect the proposed EV parking location.

6.8       A local business owner suggested the time restricted parking for Electric Vehicle (EV) parking could be between 8am and 11pm to support late operating business parking supply. Electric vehicle users require parking restrictions ‘At Any Time’ to ensure they have 24 hour 7 day a week access to the EV parking for charging and this will be the standard restrictions across Christchurch for consistency. Also any potential effect of "At Any Time" restrictions on parking availability in the area, as a result, will be negligible.

6.9       A local business owner asked if alternative locations for EV parking had been considered. The proposed EV location is governed by the availability of the required underground power supply infrastructure. Any additional work required to install substantial underground power supply and cables is cost prohibitive. The proposed location on Attachment A is the best location based on availability of infrastructure and also satisfies visibility requirements to improve publicity and make the EV parking easier to find.

6.10    An information leaflet was distributed to various Sumner interest groups, resident associations, business owners and operators on Wakefield Street and to residents. 600 leaflets were hand delivered and a further two hundred went to stakeholders via post and email.

6.11    Following information leaflet distribution, queries were received regarding the types of charger available and asking if there a cost to users. Council plans to provide further information to the public following the installation of EV charging stations that will answer these queries.

6.12    Feedback from the meeting and information leaflet distribution also commented on a possible Village Green and skate park on Nayland Street and queried how the proposal would effect this. Attachment A shows the extents of the Nayland Wakefield Bund, the Sumner Library and Community Centre and the Sumner Village Suburban Master Plan Project – these three projects are all at various stages ranging from consultation to construction. The EV parking location was considered in conjunction with these works and is separate from any other suggested changes to this area.

Options for the Nayland Street location of a Village Green and skate park are currently in the early investigation stages. The location of furniture and infrastructure such as electric car charging stations within the area would therefore become part of that project's considerations, at the point at which it progresses further.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation - $6000, which includes public engagement, signage, road marking and minor civil works to reinstate kerb and footpath. The cost of supply and installation of the charging unit is covered by Orion.

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

6.16    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.17    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.

6.18    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.

6.19    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

6.20    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.21    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.22    Implementation timeframe - Late 2016 and is dependent of the timing of the relocation of the Orion sub station box.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.23    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides access for electric vehicles to charge their batteries.

·     Provides two new 90 degree unrestricted car parks to maintain existing kerbside parking supply

·     Supports Christchurch Energy Action Plan

6.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     No identified disadvantages – reduction of parking supply has been mitigated by providing additional two parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing parking 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 was not consulted on.

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    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:

·   No change from existing

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the installation of electric vehicle chargers.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Electric Vehicle Parking Restriction

81

 

 

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

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Kevin Crutchley - Resource Efficiency Programme Manager

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

12.    Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Ensors Road, Outside Fulton Hogan Quarries

Reference:

16/1018484

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 on Ensors Road outside the Fulton Hogan Quarry Depot as shown on Attachment A. The site is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

Origin of Report

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

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 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 approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Ensors Road, commencing at a point 151 metres south of its intersection with Laurence Street and extending in a south 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: 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:

·     Improves visibility of vehicles egressing from Quarry depot onto a Major Arterial Road, reducing collision risk.

·     Allows for safer manoeuvring of heavy vehicles, into and out of the site.

·     Avoids any unnecessary traffic delays on Ensors Road due to large vehicles not being able to manoeuvre into the site or having to enter the site slowly and carefully due to parked vehicles.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes five unrestricted kerbside parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a recent concern raised by a local business regarding the operation of the existing access/egress at the Fulton Hogan Quarry Depot at 133 Ensors Road (the site). Heavy vehicles access the site on Ensors Road at the drop kerb crossing nearest Brougham Street and exit through a drop kerb crossing a further 15m to the north.

5.2       Ensors Road has a wide central median strip separating two traffic lanes in each direction. Ensors Road is classified as a major arterial route within the road hierarchy and has a legal speed limit of 60km/h.

5.3       The ARA institute of Canterbury has a campus directly across the road from the site, other notable traffic features near the site include a pedestrian crossing point through the central median and bus stops on both sides of Ensors Road near the pedestrian crossing point.

5.4       Council risk mapping software used to assess the safety risk of junctions and roads across the city reports that Ensors Road between Brougham Street and Ferry Road has a medium high collective risk.

5.5       Fulton Hogan’s Quarry Development Manager reports, that on average 200 vehicles enter the site per day. The majority of this traffic will be heavy vehicles. On some occasions 350 vehicles have been reported by Fulton Hogan to enter the site per day.

5.6       Heavy vehicles, particularly truck and trailers have difficulty manoeuvring into the site if a vehicle is parked near the access. This situation can significantly slow a vehicle’s entry, increases risk of a collision with a parked vehicle and can create frustration for drivers behind heavy traffic having difficulty entering the site, causing delayed drivers to make a rushed lane change and increasing the chances of a collision.

5.7       Vehicles egressing from the site can have limited visibility due to parked cars. Limited visibility increases the chance of a collision on a road assessed to have a medium high collective risk.

5.8       Heavy vehicles egressing from the site and in particular truck and trailers have difficulty manoeuvring out if vehicles are parked near the dropped kerb. No stopping restrictions increase the chance of a large vehicle being able to merge with the closest traffic lane and not having to negotiate two through lanes of traffic to exit the site.

5.9       A search of the Crash Analysis System (CAS) reveals eight reported crashes from 2011 to 2016, on Ensors Road between Brougham Street and Ferry Road.  None of these were directly associated with the site.

 


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Install 'No Stopping' restrictions on Ensors Road, as shown on Attachment A.

6.2       This option removes five kerbside parking spaces. This parking will be displaced further along Ensors Road and into the surrounding streets. It is noted that there is adequate kerbside parking supply between 137 Ensors Road and Laurence 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 business operators were advised of the recommended option by email. The operator of the quarry depot supports the proposal and the owner of the property also supports the proposal.

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 $100 to install road markings.

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 following board approval.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves visibility for vehicles egressing from Quarry depot onto a Major Arterial Road, reducing collision risk.

·   Allows for safer manoeuvring of heavy vehicle’s, into and out of the site.

·   Avoids any unnecessary traffic delays on Ensors Road due to large vehicles not being able to manoeuvre into the site or having to enter the site more slowly and carefully due to parked vehicles.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes five kerbside car parks.

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 business requests for improvement to the site access ways.

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 to existing kerbside parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety issues identified.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

88

b

Site Location

90

 

 

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

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

13.    Naming of the new Sumner Library and Community Facility

Reference:

16/1002550

Contact:

Dyane Hosler

Dyane.hosler@ccc.govt.nz

9417842

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to seek endorsement from the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board for the name of the new Sumner Library and Community Facility following consultation with the community, Runanga (Taumutu and Ngai Tuahuiri) and Mahaanui Kurataiao.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Board:

1.            Endorse the recommendation as determined by the community competition to accept the name of the Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre.

2.            Adopt the new name of the facility to be Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre.

 

 

3.   Background

 

3.1          A community competition was launched in May 2016 to find a name for the new Sumner facility scheduled to open in 2017. The purpose was to find a name that reflected the community and enhanced the local iwi identity and was agreed upon by the rununga using community involvement. A pan-Council project group was formed including members from the Sumner Joint Working Group and Te Marino Lenihan (external Maori consultant working on the Sumner project). Conditions and criteria for the naming were agreed to and made available online. The competition had two distinct stages (suggestions of names and secondly voting on short listed names).

In the first stage of the competition from 23 May to 6 June 2016 the community was asked to suggest names including a commentary on the significance of the name. This stage was promoted extensively at Council sites including pools, libraries, service centres and Civic offices via social media (websites, Twitter, blogs etc), road signage, and also face-to-face by visiting schools, ECE Centres, and at local events and programmes. Drop off boxes were situated at Sumner and Linwood Libraries, at the Sumner Hub, the Sumner School and via the library mobile van. Promotion was picked up by external groups and promoted further using their own websites and channels for example via the Sumner hub website. Members of the JWG promoted the competition directly in the summer community to encourage participation.

 

Names were submitted during this process either by individuals or groups (schools, ECE Centres) and either online or manually (at Christchurch City Libraries).

 

In mid-June the Committee met to group the suggested names and then  narrow them down to five names for online voting. The names ranged from concise to really creative, there were trends and some were culled for various reasons.

 

In the second stage of the process which ran from 20 June to 1 July the community were asked to vote using Survey Monkey.  A total of 241 votes were, however due to an IT glitch 41 were removed due to people voting more than once.   Once again this stage was promoted extensively in the community using many channels.

 

These names that were voted on and the total votes for each included:

 

·          Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre: 57 votes

·          Sumner Community Centre, Library and Museum: 35 votes

·          Surfers Peak: 21 votes

·          The Cornerstone: 24 votes

·          Tuawera: Sumner Centre: 63 votes

The Committee met following the close of voting. We revisited the criteria for the naming competition and invited to the meeting the new Council Maori Senior Advisors for Ngai Tahu & Maori Relationships Kaharoa Manihera and Gabrielle Huria.

 

The criteria included:

 

·          that the name must have significance and clarity to the community;

·          that the name must enhance the local iwi identity;

·          that the name must be agreed on by the Runanga.

There was discussion on the meaning and significance of Matuku Takotako and Tuawera to Maori history and folklore.  There was agreement that Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre was the better name for the Centre for the following reasons:

 

·          Matuku Takotako  is  the original Maori name for Sumner and has enhanced mana and significance to the local iwi than Tuawera (name for Shags Rock)

·          Matuku Takotako is another word for the local bittern/ blue heron that visit Sumner and also is incorporated into Maori folklore.

Tuawera was discounted as the name for the centre due to the inter-tribal hapu conflict and resulting bloodshed surrounding this name.  It was seen as not having the credibility or mana to carry the significance of being the name for the Centre.  However it was considered that this name could be incorporated within the Centre e.g. the name for the large community room since Sumner residents identify with it.

 

Kaharoa Manihera, Gabrielle Huria and Te Marino Lenihan took both names to the Tuahiwi Marae and it was tabled at their Trustee August meeting. Kaharoa reports that both Dr. Te Maire tau (Ngai Tahu Historian) and Claire Williams (chairperson-Ngai Tuahuriri) have given their approval for the name Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre from their Maori perspective.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

Signatories

Author

Andrea Charity - Team Leader Management Support/Personal Assistant

Approved By

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

14.    Request to remove street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue to allow siting of Rockfall Protection Structure

Reference:

16/1042676

Contact:

Marcy McCallum

Marcy.McCallum@ccc.govt.nz

941 6283

 

 

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 removal of the street tree directly outside 48 Heberden Avenue to allow for a Rockfall Protection Structure to be constructed to protect the dwelling at 48 Heberden Avenue.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated (on behalf of the property owner)

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of properties affected and the value of the works.

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 removal of the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue to allow a Rockfall Protection Structure to be constructed to protect the dwelling at 48 Heberden Avenue.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·                Level of Service: 16.0.12 Maintain street landscapes

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·                Option 1 – Approve the removal of the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue (preferred option)

·                Option 2 – Do not approve the removal of the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    The property owner can construct a Rockfall Protection Structure at the front of her property at 48 Heberden Avenue to protect her dwelling.

·    The property owner and her family will be able to safely reside in their ‘Red Zone’ property once the Rockfall Protection Structure has been constructed.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    A healthy Council owned street tree will be removed to allow for the construction of the fence.

 

5.   Context/Background

Christchurch City Council Rockfall Protection Structure Grant Scheme

5.1       On 7 December 2012, the Council resolved to create a funding policy for CERA Red Zone property owners who wished to remain in their homes where they could construct a Rockfall Protection Structure to protect the dwelling.

5.2       The Council passed a resolution on 12 February 2015 delegating the power to made a decision on the matters relating to the Rockfall Protection Structures Scheme to a sub-committee of the Mayor, Councillors Londsdale, Johanson, Clearwater and Turner.

5.3       The Property Owner applied for funding from the Rockfall Protection Structures Grant Scheme and was accepted. All conditions of funding have been met and a Funding Agreement is in place.

48 Heberden Avenue Rockfall Protection Structure

5.4       Following comprehensive rockfall risk assessments and design, the design recommended by the Approved GeoProfessional (and signed off by the peer reviewer) is a reinforced concrete wall with a steel gate (see attached plan). The design has obtained Christchurch City Council Building and Resource Consents.

5.5       The Property Owner has a Licence to Occupy the Road Reserve and intends on applying to Council to purchase the section of Road Reserve (following the Road Stopping processes) in the near future.

5.6       In order to construct the reinforced concrete wall and gate the hedge and a large tarata or lemonwood (Pittosporum eugenioides), a Council owned street tree, need to be removed.  There is no opportunity to site the structure closer to the dwelling as the property owners would not be able to reverse their vehicles safely.

5.7       The property owner intends to re-plant in front of the wall to minimise the visual effect of the wall and mitigate the effects of removing the existing vegetation. These new plants will be maintained by the property owner at no cost to Council.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Approval to remove the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approval to remove the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue to allow a Rockfall Protection Structure to be constructed to protect the dwelling at 48 Heberden Avenue.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are limited to directly affected parties.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Very few members of the community are specifically affected by this option due to the majority of neighbours having been red zoned.  Their views have not been sought at this stage.

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 – Nil (removal costs will be paid for via the Rockfall Protection Structures Grant)

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Reduction in street tree maintenance costs

6.9       Funding source – Rockfall Protection Structures Grant for 48 Heberden Avenue

Legal Implications

6.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations  

6.11    The risks associated with this options are minor.

6.12    There is a risk that removal of the tree would result in adverse effects on the amenity of the street

6.12.1 Treatment: replanting in front of the structure

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

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - the construction of the Rockfall Protection Structure cannot go ahead in the consented location without the prior removal of the street tree

6.14    Implementation timeframe – works to be scheduled in as soon as approval is granted

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The property owner can construct a Rockfall Protection Structure at the front of her property at 48 Heberden Avenue to protect her dwelling.

·   The property owner and her family will be able to safely reside in their ‘Red Zone’ property once the Rockfall Protection Structure has been constructed.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A healthy street tree will be removed.

7.   Option 2 – Do not approve the removal of the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue

Option Description

7.1       Do not approve the removal of the street tree outside 48 Heberden Avenue for the purposes of constructing a rockfall protection structure to protect the dwelling at 48 Heberden Avenue.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are limited to directly affected parties.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Very few members of the community are specifically affected by this option due to the majority of neighbours having been red zoned.  Their views have not been sought at this stage.

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 – there will be a cost to the property owner

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Council will need to continue to maintain the tree

7.9       Funding source – OPEX tree maintenance budget

Legal Implications

7.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk of not being able to complete the construction of the rockfall protection structure caused by refusal of permission to remove the tree.  This will result in the property owner not being able to safely live in the house, financial losses and adverse publicity for Council.

7.11.1 Treatment: explain reasons for the decision

7.11.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   A Council street tree will be retained

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There will be a significant financial impact for the property owner should the Rockfall Protection Structure not be able to be constructed, as a significant amount of the Rockfall Protection Structure Scheme Grant has been expended already on obtaining risk assessments, design, surveys, building consent and resource consent.

·   The property owner has been living with the risk of rockfall for a number of years now (since the February 2011 earthquakes) and this option would further delay the construction of a Rockfall Protection Structure and cause additional stress.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan of proposed Rockfall Protection Structure for 48 Heberden Avenue, Sumner

102

b

48 Heberden Avenue - Street Tree Removal - Annotated Photos

103

 

 

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

Marcy McCallum - Junior Project Manager

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Emma Davis - Acting General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

15.    Street Tree Removal Request - 133-135 Peterborough Street

Reference:

16/1044372

Contact:

Craig Taylor

craig.taylor@ccc.govt.nz

941 8867

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board to approve/decline the removal of the tree located in the footpath outside 133-135 Peterborough Street, Christchurch City.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request by the developer, Mr James Clark of Beachside Holdings for the removal of the Liriodendron tree outside the proposed development at 133-135 Peterborough St, Christchurch City on the following grounds:

·   A new vehicle crossing would need to be installed across Christchurch City Council (CCC) land which would entail the removal of the CCC tree to gain access to the dwellings.

 

2.   Significance

2.1   The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the CCC Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by a score of 17.

2.2   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for 133-135 Peterborough Street – Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board agenda for the 21 September 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with this tree as being low as per section 2.1.1 of this report.

 

2.2.1  

3.   Staff Recommendations

             That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board:

             1.         Acknowledge that the tree is in healthy condition.

2.         Note that all other options to relocate the entrance will impact on either the development or the public realm.

3.         Exercise its delegation to either:

a.    Decline the request to remove the tree in the footpath at 133-135 Peterborough Street, on the basis that it is a healthy specimen, thereby requiring the developer to amend property access plans or

b.    Approve the request for removal and require the applicant too mitigate the impact on the local amenity by replanting a 100 litre Liriodendron tree after the completion of the development.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.1.2            Activity: Roads and Footpaths

Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2          The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Decline the request to remove the tree (preferred option).

·   Option 2 - Approve the request to remove the tree and replant.

4.3          Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages (preferred option).

4.3.1   The advantages of the preferred option include:

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

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

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

·   We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the central city so this option will not set a precedents for all future enquiries.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Developer dissatisfaction with outcome.

·   Potential for poor publicity as CCC could be seen to be holding the rebuild up in Christchurch with bureaucracy.

Consultation

4.4   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for 133-135 Peterborough Street – Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board agenda for the 21 September 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with this tree as being low as per Section 2 of this report.

 

5.   Context/Background

Initial communication

5.1       Resource Consent was applied for RMA/2016/1744 for the development of 5 dwellings at 133-135 Peterborough Street by developer, Mr James Clark of Beachside Holdings. The Resource Consent application was approved by the CCC.

5.2       However the approval only applies to the private land to the front boundary i.e. not CCC land. Mr James Clark (developer) rang CCC on 18 July and spoke to CCC Eastern Area Arborist, Craig Taylor as the proposed driveway was to have a new vehicle crossing constructed on CCC land which entailed the removal of one Liriodendron tree. Mr James Clarke was advised that community board approval would be required for the removal of a healthy tree.

5.3       A CSR92115207 was generated by the call centre to the CCC Area Arborist which was redirected on the 19 July 2016 to vehicle crossing approval officer to ascertain if a vehicle crossing could be installed or not so that the tree could be addressed.

5.4       In a follow up discussion with Mr James Clark, all options were explored including:

·    Moving the driveway to the western boundary – This option wasn’t feasible as there is also another tree located on the western boundary on CCC land that would require community board approval for removal.

·   Moving the driveway over slightly to the west from its current location – This wasn’t feasible as this would mean that the houses/gardens would have to be made smaller to accommodate the driveway.

·   The proposed driveway can’t be diverted around the tree as the tree sits directly in the centre of the driveway.

5.5       The tree was inspected by the CCC Arborist and was deemed to be healthy and structurally sound at the time of inspection.

5.6       The tree is a Liriodendron tulipifera (Tulip tree) tree ID 39392 which the CCC tree asset data indicates was planted in 1998.

5.7       The tree is approx. 21 years in age and is 8m in height. The assessment found that the subject tree could potentially have a useful life expectancy of at least another 30+ years.  However, the life expectancy of the tree is likely to be reduced by site constraints due to the narrow width of the planting pit which the tree is located. I would expect the tree to grow to a height of 14m+ in this location.

5.8       The subject tree is located within a planting pit 1m in depth and 1.8m in width. The tree does not impede the road.

5.9       The tree was assessed using the table below and the subject tree scored 2 (good) for health and 3 (fair) for form giving an overall condition rating for the tree as 3 (fair).

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

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

 

             Condition                  Score

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 

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

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

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

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

 

6.   Option Description: Decline the request to remove the tree (preferred option).

Option Description

6.1       Decline the request to remove the tree (preferred).

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for 133-135 Peterborough Street – Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board agenda for the 21 September 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with this tree as being low as per Section 2 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil.

6.7       Tree maintenance costs - $208.77 every five years.

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

6.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

6.12    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option are:

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

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

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

·   We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the central city so this option will not set a precedents for all future enquiries.

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Developer dissatisfaction with outcome.

·   Potential for poor publicity as CCC could be seen to be holding the rebuild up in Christchurch with bureaucracy.

7.   Option 2 – Remove the tree and replant.

Option Description

              7.1   Remove the tree and replant. All costs are to be borne by the applicant. The tree is to be replaced at the completion of the development with a 100 litre Liriodendron.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4   Community engagement and consultation – No CCC consultation for 133-135 Peterborough Street – Street Tree Removal Request was undertaken due to the late inclusion into the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board agenda for the 21 September 2016. A CCC Significance and Engagement Policy assessment was carried out which showed the level of significance with this tree as being low as per Section 2 of this report.

7.5       Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6     Cost of Implementation - Tree removal including stump grinding and traffic management approx. $1500. Approximate costs for the replanting of one 100 litre Liriodendron tree in a suitable location including 3 years established maintenance of a juvenile tree to ensure establishment $550.00. Total cost $2050.00.

7.7       CCC maintenance costs - $3.16 every 3 years (after the first 3 years of maintenance under the established maintenance period has ended. This established maintenance is paid for by the applicant).

7.8       Funding source - All costs would need to be borne by the applicant as no provisions are made available under the Streets Operational/Capital budgets for the removal of healthy trees.

 

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The tree removal, stump grinding and replanting with one 100 litre Liriodendron tree would need to be undertaken by a qualified and experienced arboricultural contractor. The public would need to be notified of the works prior to commencement of works.

 Implementation

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

7.12     Implementation timeframe for replacement planting - The replacement planting is preferable during the autumn/winter planting season May to August 2017 or the next available planting season after completion of the development.

Option Summary - Advantages and disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Developer will be satisfied with the outcome.

·   Potential for good publicity as CCC could be seen to be working with developers to come to a satisfactory outcome and not holding up the Christchurch rebuild with bureaucracy.

·   All costs are borne by the applicant.

·   A new Liriodendron tree planted to improve the streetscape.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option are:

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

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

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

·   We get a number of requests by developers for the removal of healthy trees in the central city so this option could set a precedents for all future enquiries.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Peterborough Street Tree Assessement Sept 2016

114

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Craig Taylor - Arborist East

Approved By

Jo Hart - Manager Technical Support

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

16.    Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/1055200

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/

2.   Funding Update

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

3.   Council Activities and Decisions

3.1       LIM Notifications

At the Council meeting of 25 August 2016 an urgent staff report was requested regarding the Chief Executive's decision on coastal hazard Land Information Memoranda (LIM) notations. The information report was duly prepared for today's Council meeting.

At the Council meeting this morning the report was deferred until the Council's 22 September 2016 meeting so the community has time to prepare deputations if they wish.

Chief Executive, Dr Karleen Edwards, has the delegated authority to make decisions relevant to LIMs, and deferring the receipt of today's report does not change her earlier decision to alter the coastal hazard wording on LIMs. This decision was made and communicated publicly by Dr Edwards on 5 September 2016.

The new single LIM notation for the 18,000 properties identified as being susceptible to coastal hazards in the Coastal Hazard Assessment Report (2015 Tonkin & Taylor) makes it clear that further work around quantifying the risk from coastal hazards is being done, and that LIM notations may change in the future.

4.   Community Governance Team Activity

4.1       Staff have supported the Bromley Community Centre, Woolston Community Centre and Linwood Resource Centre to organise a combined candidates’ evening for the community to meet and talk with the Council and Community Board candidates for the Linwood Ward. The initiative is a great example of the community collaborating to encourage civic participation, and it is hoped the event attracts a diverse range of people from the community.

4.2       Community Governance staff have begun working with other teams across Council on a pre-engagement plan for the new Woolston Community Facility.

4.3       Staff have been collating information for a Community Board Plan Report to monitor which objectives outlined in the plan have been achieved.  Staff will be talking to the Community Board about this in the area update.

4.4       Numerous walks will appeal to people of all ages and abilities during The Breeze Walking Festival from 24 September to 9 October.  The Council has teamed up with a number of community organisations who will lead walks to highlight the history, the art, the nature, the developments, and the beauty that lies within the Hagley/Ferrymead ward. Earlier this year, walking took the top spot as the most popular physical activity.  It's not hard to see why!  The festival provides the perfect chance to kick start a regular walking habit, connect with familiar and new places and spend time having fun with the kids and whanau. Karawhiua!

4.5       LYFE (Linwood Youth Festival Experience) is underway with Youthtown providing a team of youth facilitators to work with Linwood youth and youth focused organisations to plan and deliver this event on 4 March 2017. The project involves youth (12 - 24 years) in all aspects of the event including organising the event, performing at the event, having fun at the event with friends and whanau, and gaining valuable information at the event for their health and wellbeing.  A review of LYFE will be undertaken during the length of the project to provide direction for the future of LYFE.  This will involve key stakeholders, including the new Board for Central-Linwood-Heathcote.

5.   Sumner Suburban Master Plan – Bus stop locations decision and process

On 17 February 2016 the Community Board made the decision to relocate a bus stop to 17 Wakefield Avenue, outside the Sumner Pharmacy.  After the decision the owner of the pharmacy expressed that he would prefer that the bus stop was not relocated.   A meeting was held with affected business owners on 28 July 2016 to talk about two options that had been discussed with the Community Board.  A third option was proposed by the owners and presented to the Community Board.  In August 2016, the Board requested staff to explore a third parking space outside 1, 5 and 7 Wakefield Avenue.  The Community Governance Team are working with the project team for Sumner Village Master Plan Product P1.1, to set up a meeting with the residents affected by the Wakefield Avenue bus stop location decision.  This meeting is for the Board and staff to discuss with the community what is happening in relation to the bus stop and car parks.

 

 

6.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hagley Ferrymead Community Board - Funding Update Table

120

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald - Governance Support Officer

Barbara Strang - Community Board Advisor

Nicola Eccleton - Community Development Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Brenda Preston - Community Support Officer

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Hagley/Ferrymead

  


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

17.  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.

 

 

 

18.  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.