Te Hapori o Ōhinehou raua ko Te Ahu Pātiki

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 21 September 2016

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Lyttelton Community Boardroom, 25 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Paula Smith

Christine Wilson

Denis Aldridge

Ann  Jolliffe

Adrian Te Patu

Andrew Turner

 

 

14 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@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

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Objectives

for the 2013 – 2016 Triennium

 

These objectives are agreed by members of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board. They are intended to guide decision-making and provide a basis for the Board's advocacy work in this triennium and beyond. These objectives can only be achieved in partnership with others, including community groups, Ngāi Tahu whanaunui, local businesses (including Lyttelton Port of Christchurch), Christchurch City Council and government agencies.

 

·           The challenges and strengths of increasing diversity in our communities are acknowledged and celebrated.

·           More and different people are involved in their communities.

·           The Board maintains and increases its leadership role as advocate for our communities.

·           Local partnership in earthquake recovery, regeneration and ongoing community development.

·           The community understands and has confidence in the Board's decision-making.

·           The relationship between the community and the port, including Lyttelton Port Company, is improved.

·           Protection, retention and restoration of natural and cultural heritage.

·           Avoid or mitigate negative effects of port traffic on community well-being.

·           Direct public access to the inner harbour and waterfront from Lyttelton town centre.

·           Strong physical and social links between harbour-side communities are maintained and enhanced.

·           Lyttelton town centre is rebuilt in a way which expresses its unique character.

·           All rebuild activity promotes social and economic vibrancy and / or wellbeing.

·           Lyttelton Urban Design Advisory Committee is established and operating effectively.

·           Arts and creative activities are supported and celebrated.

·           Lyttelton Harbour catchment water quality is steadily improving.

·           Significant progress on the Head-to-Head Walkway.

·           Landscapes are protected and sustainably managed.

·           Plans for Diamond Harbour town centre redevelopment are agreed upon and implemented.

·           Lyttelton Harbour is a destination of choice for visitors from Christchurch and beyond.

·           Lyttelton’s status as preferred port of call for cruise ships visiting Canterbury is restored.

·           Residents feel safe from natural hazards in all harbour communities.

·           There is access to suitable housing for all those who wish to live here.

·           Facilities for community activities, including recreation and sport, are repaired, rebuilt, maintained and well-used by all residents.

·           For local government and electoral purposes, Banks Peninsula remains intact and has effective representation, reflecting the Peninsula’s inherent integrity and particular interests.

 

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Proposed for Adoption:16 December 2015

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert 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

 

Karakia Timatanga.............................................................................................................................. 4 

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.       Correspondence - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission on Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2016/17................................................. 9

B       7.       Correspondence - Request for Storage Container on Lyttelton Recreation Ground 19

B       8.       Staff Briefing - Quarterly Update from Parks Unit..................................................... 21

B       9.       Staff Briefing - Update on Allandale Hall Project....................................................... 23

Lyttelton-Mt Herbert Community Board CommitteeS

B       10.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee Minutes - 17 August 2016................................................................................................................................. 25

B       11.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 7 September 2016............................................................................................................. 35

STAFF REPORTS

A       12.     Governors Bay Jetty...................................................................................................... 45

C       13.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications ............ 61

B       14.     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report.............................................. 67

B       15.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 81

B       16.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 81

C       17.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 82

Valedictories

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

Karakia Timatanga 

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 Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 7 September 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Update on Dampier Bay Development

 

John O’Dea, Project Development Manager, and Mike Simmers, Project Director, of Lyttelton Port Company will provide an update on developments at the Port and the Dampier Bay Marina.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

 

Te Hapori o Ōhinehou raua ko Te Ahu Pātiki

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 7 September 2016

Time:                                    10.30am

Venue:                                 Lyttelton Community Boardroom, 25 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton

 

 

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Paula Smith

Christine Wilson

Denis Aldridge

Ann  Jolliffe

Adrian Te Patu

Andrew Turner

 

 

1 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Liz Beaven

Community Board Advisor

941 5602

liz.beaven@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

 

 

Karakia Timatanga: Paula Smith. 

In Attendance:

Paula Smith, Christine Wilson, Ann Jolliffe and Andrew Turner.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Apologies

 

Community Board Resolved LMCB/2016/00098

It was resolved on the motion of Paula Smith, seconded by Ann Jolliffe that the apologies from Denis Aldridge and Adrian Te Patu be accepted.

Paula Smith/Ann Jolliffe                                                                                                                                           Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LMCB/2016/00099

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 be confirmed.

Christine Wilson/Ann Jolliffe                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

Karakia Whakamutunga: Paula Smith. 

Meeting concluded at 10.35pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016.

 

Paula Smith

Chairperson

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

6.        Correspondence - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission on Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2016/17

Reference:

16/1050713

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Lianne Dalziel, Mayor,

Christchurch City Council

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission on Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2016/17

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 21 September 2016 from Lianne Dalziel, Mayor, Christchurch City Council regarding the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board submission on the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2016/17.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission on Christchurch City Council Draft Annual Plan 2016/17

10

b

Attachment - Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submission, Staff Comments Provided to Councillors, and Relevant Annual Plan/Long Term Plan Resolution

12

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

7.        Correspondence - Request for Storage Container on Lyttelton Recreation Ground

Reference:

16/1066050

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Mick Stephenson, Lyttel Soccer and Lyttelton Football Club

Request for Storage Container on Lyttelton Recreation Ground

 

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 21 September 2016 from Lyttel Soccer and Lyttelton Football Club regarding a request for a storage container on the Lyttelton Recreation Ground.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Request for Storage Container on Lyttelton Recreation Ground

20

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

8         Staff Briefing - Quarterly Update from Parks Unit

Reference:

16/1050376

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenters

Unit

Quarterly Update from Parks Unit on Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Area

Simon Curtis, Parks Advisor - East

 

Bridie Gibbings, Local Parks Ranger East

 

Ed Hadfield, Operations Manager, Recreational Services

 

Craig Taylor, Arborist – East

 

Parks Unit

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Note the information during the Staff Briefing – Quarterly Update from Parks Unit on park matters within the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert area.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

9         Staff Briefing - Update on Allandale Hall Project

Reference:

16/1050507

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenters

Unit

Update on Allandale Hall Project

Darren Moses, Manager Capital Delivery Community

Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

 

Michael Sheffield, Project Manager, Programme Management – Community Facilities

 

Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

 

Ann Campbell, Senior Engagement Advisor

 

Public Information & Participation

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Note the information during the Staff Briefing – Update on Allandale Hall Project.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

10.    Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee Minutes - 17 August 2016

Reference:

16/944165

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee held a meeting on 17 August 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Board for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board receive the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting held 17 August 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee - 17 August 2016

26

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

11.    Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 7 September 2016

Reference:

16/1086890

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.Beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 5602

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee held a meeting on 7 September 2016 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Board for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board receive the Minutes from the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee meeting held 7 September 2016.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Submissions Committee - 7 September 2016

36

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

12.    Governors Bay Jetty

Reference:

16/850074

Contact:

Kelly Hansen

Kelly.Hansen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8142

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board recommend:

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

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

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Harbours and Marine Structures

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – Demolish jetty

·     Option 3 – Abandon jetty

·     Option 4 – The Council restores the jetty

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Implementation of a community-led initiative

·     The jetty is restored for community use

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 

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

Option Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

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

6.12    Funding source – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

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

6.17    Implementation timeframe – 3-5 years

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Implementation of a community-led initiative.

·   The jetty is restored for community use.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

7.   Option 2 – Demolish Jetty

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

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

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

Financial Implications

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

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

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

Legal Implications

7.10    There are no legal implications with this option.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    Community dissatisfaction.

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

Implementation

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

7.14    Implementation timeframe – 2018/19 financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Lower cost than renewing jetty.

·   No ongoing cost.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Community dissatisfaction with loss of jetty.

8.   Option 3 – Abandon jetty

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

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

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - $30,000

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

8.9       Funding source - Amended Long Term Plan 2015-25

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    Dissatisfied community

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies  - nil

8.13    Implementation timeframe – 2018/19 financial year

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Limited Council finances required to implement.

·   No ongoing costs.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Community dissatisfaction with loss of jetty

·   Negative impact on amenity value.

9.   Option 4 – The Council restores the jetty

Option Description

9.1       The Council undertakes restoration of the jetty.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

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

9.9       Funding source - Long Term Plan 2018-28

Legal Implications

9.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

9.12    Implementation dependencies  - Funding availability

9.13    Implementation timeframe – Funding dependent

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The jetty is restored for community use.

9.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A high cost project that is not currently funded.

·   Ongoing maintenance costs that will increase over time.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Agreement for Sale and Purchase of the Governers Bay Jetty 2016

53

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Kelly Hansen - Senior Recreation Planner

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

Jason Rivett - Finance Business Partner

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

13.    Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/970440

Contact:

Andrea Wild

Andrea.wild@ccc.govt.nz

941 5605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board to consider applications for 2016 Neighbourhood Week funding.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Consider the applications as set out below and allocate Neighbourhood Week funding :

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

Lyttelton Community House

Afternoon tea for all in community

100

$260

Lyttelton Tennis Club

BBQ and picnic

50

$120

R. Macpherson on behalf of residents of Ross Terrace, Selwyn Road, Selwyn Lane and Shackleton Terrace , Lyttelton

Street Party

35

$100

 

Cass Bay Residents Association

Cass Bay Halloween and BBQ Family Event

200+

$910

J. Eames on behalf of residents of Mariners Cove, Cass Bay

Get together, especially to welcome all the new members of the street and those currently building

36

$162

Governors Bay Neighbourhood Support Group

Sandy Bay BBQ

30+

$136

K. Presswood on behalf of residents of Brae Lane, Governors Bay

BBQ

25

$112

 

4.   Key Points

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

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

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

4.4       By the closing date seven applications had been received.  The applications were sorted and assessed to ensure that they met the guidelines for the Neighbourhood Week events, and staff recommended an amount to be allocated to each application.  In making the recommendations staff have endeavoured to maintain consistency.

4.5       At its meeting on 17 August 2016, the Board allocated $2,000 for Neighbourhood Week events in 2016. $200 of this funding was towards marketing and promotion and $1,800 is to be allocated to local Neighbourhood Week events.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Neighbourhood Week matrix of applications 2016

63

b

Neighbourhood Week Guidelines 2016

64

 

 

Signatories

Author

Andrea Wild - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

14     Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/64247

Contact:

Joan Blatchford

joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5643

 

 

1.   Board Activities

1.1       Community Board Plan Update

1.1.1   The Community Board Plan Work Programme including actions to date is attached.

1.2       Items for Newsline

1.2.1   The Board is requested to advise staff of items it wishes to be included on the Council’s Newsline, an online source of news and information.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board:

1.         Receive the Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board Area Report.

2.         Request that staff include noted items in the Council’s Newsline.

3.   Community Activities

3.1       Normal Kirk Memorial Pool – After Hours Key Access

3.1.1   Legal advice has been received regarding a proposal to establish after hours key access to the Norman Kirk Memorial Pool in Lyttelton. Community Governance staff are awaiting advice from the Recreation and Sports Unit.

4.   Council Activities and Decisions

4.1       Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy 2016

4.1.1   The Christchurch City Council Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy 2016 came into effect on 1 September 2016.

4.1.2   The previous Bylaw required that dogs be under effective control on the section of the Head to Head Walkway between Magazine Bay, Lyttelton and Pony Point, Cass Bay.

4.1.3   At its 17 August 2016 meeting, the Board requested that staff advise why the Dog Control Bylaw 2016 requires that dogs be leashed on this section of the Walkway.

4.1.4   Staff provided the following advice:

The section of the Head to Head Walkway between Magazine Bay and Pony Point is now a leashed area, for the following reasons:

·    Generally the Council has deemed narrow hillside tracks as leashed areas for health and safety reasons across the Christchurch City Council (consistency);

·    This track forms part of the Head to Head Walkway, and other parts of the Walkway are leashed. This is because of the narrow hillside health and safety issue outlined above, but also to protect wildlife in some areas.  In some high priority wildlife protection areas it would be preferable to prohibit dogs, but in the interests of developing the Walkway, dogs have been allowed (but only if they are on a leash and only on the track);

·    The Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy 2016 Consultation Document unintentionally had inconsistency along the Walkway in different bays, and this was corrected during the hearings process.  The Hearings Panel wanted to ensure consistency, and giving the Walkway a leashed status was the best way to do that;

·    Next time the Dog Control Bylaw and Dog Control Policy are reviewed (which will not be for some years), the Council will explore regulating in terms of walking tracks, rather than by parcels of land / bays, to ensure consistency along tracks.

5.   Funding Update

5.1       Board Funding - Unallocated Balances

A copy of the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund unallocated balance as at 21 September 2016 is attached for the Board's information.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lyttelton Mt Herbert Community Board Plan Work Programme - 2015-2016

69

b

Board Discretionary Response Fund

80

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

Angela Abel - Community Support Officer

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Amy Hart - Governance Support Officer

Philipa Hay - Community Development Advisor

Andrea Wild - Community Development Advisor

Trisha Ventom - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Lyttelton/Mt Herbert

  


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

15.  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.

 

 

 

16.  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.

 

 


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

17.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Lyttelton/Mt Herbert Community Board

21 September 2016

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

18

Lyttelton Design Review Panel Appointments

s7(2)(a)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons

To enable the Board to consider the applications for the membership of the Lyttelton Design Review Panel

23 September 2016

Once Nominees have been advised

 

 


 

Valedictories

 

Retiring Community Board members will be given an opportunity to give a valedictory speech.