Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 13 September 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

7 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@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

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

B       6.       Staff Briefing.................................................................................................................... 9

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Elizabeth Street - Angled Parking Proposal................................................................ 11

C       8.       Tenahaun Place - Proposed Parking Restrictions and P15 Parking Restriction (Goods Vehicles Only)................................................................................................................ 19

C       9.       Harakeke Street/Kilmarnock Street/Jane Deans Close - Proposed Parking Changes 27

C       10.     Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Remediation of Existing Bus Stops Concerning Road Markings and Layout Alterations ................................................................................ 39

C       11.     Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations.......................... 52

CA     12.     Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café - New Lease and Surrender..................................... 61

C       13.     Riccarton/Wigram Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications ................. 73

B       14.     Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - September 2016.................... 81

B       15.     Elected Members Information Exchange..................................................................... 98

B       16.     Questions Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 98 

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 30 August 2016, be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Kath Jamieson and Mike Stockwell, will address the Board regarding Elizabeth Street – Angled Parking Proposal (Item 7 refers).

 

4.2

Maria Connolly, local resident, will address the Board regarding the proposed parking restrictions on Harakeke Street (Item 9 refers).

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

5.1

Vi O’Connor, local resident, will be in attendance to present a petition regarding traffic issues in Oakhampton Street. 

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

 

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 30 August 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Community Room, Upper Riccarton Library,
71 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Peter Laloli

Debbie  Mora

 

 

30 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Dow

Community Board Advisor

941 6501

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00138

That the apologies from Vicki Buck and Natalie Bryden for lateness, be accepted.

Peter Laloli/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00139

Community Board Decision

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

Debbie Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                            Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    


 

 

6.   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board - 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Applications For Funding

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00140

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

Part C

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $1,200 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Community Development Network Trust towards the venue hire for the Riccarton Primary Schools Indoor Sport Competition.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $8,150 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund towards Riccarton/Wigram ward enhancement projects.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

7.   Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

7.1       Youth Development Fund - Recipients Report Back Function – positive feedback and thanks to those members and staff who attended this enjoyable occasion.

7.2       Correspondence received from a local resident regarding parking issues at the eastern end of Hanrahan Street.

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00141

Part C

The Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decided to receive the correspondence from a local resident of Hanrahan Street and to refer the matters raised to staff for consideration and response back to the Board.

Helen Broughton/Mike Mora                                                                                                                                Carried

 

Natalie Bryden and Vicki Buck arrived at 4:14 pm.

8.   Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders.

 

9     Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved RWCB/2016/00142

Part C

That at 4.13pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 34 and 35 of the agenda, be adopted.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 4.15pm.

   

Meeting concluded at 4.16pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

6.        Staff Briefing

Reference:

16/1013026

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

SCIRT

Ross Herrett, Infrastructure Rebuild Liaison Manager

Christchurch City Council

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board:

1.         Notes the information provided during the Staff Briefing.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

7.        Elizabeth Street - Angled Parking Proposal

Reference:

16/855350

Contact:

Steve Dejong

Steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

9416428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on the Elizabeth Street angled parking proposal.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the resolution of the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for staff to investigate the provision of angle parking on Elizabeth Street between Picton Avenue and Clarence Street.

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 using the criteria listed in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the preferred option being to retain the present parking arrangements in Elizabeth Street (Picton Avenue to Clarence Street).

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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 – Do nothing (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Install 90 degree angled parking

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The usable road width is not reduced maintaining sufficient room for motor vehicles and cyclists on the carriageway.

·     The level of service and safety for pedestrians is not compromised.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The number of kerb side parking spaces  will not be increased

5.   Context/Background

Elizabeth Street Angled Parking

5.1       On 20 October 2015, following a deputation to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board by the owner of a rental property in Elizabeth Street and a subsequent notice of motion, the Board decided ‘to request that staff explore angle parking on Elizabeth Street (numbers 1 to 13) between Picton Avenue and Clarence Street and/or provide any other practicable options.’

5.2       Preliminary investigations by staff ruled out the provision of angle parking on the north side of the street due to the placement of existing vehicle entranceways. If angle parking were to be installed, the south side of the street is better suited.

5.3       On 1 December 2015 this was reported back to the Board in a seminar where staff were requested to complete the process and consult with residents of Elizabeth Street with regard to the angle parking proposal and prepare a report for the April 2016 Board meeting. However, due to the Traffic Operations budget for the 2015/16 financial year being over extended, the Elizabeth Street proposal had to be delayed until the 2016/17 financial year.

5.4       Although the provision of angle parking on the south side of Elizabeth Street is possible, there are several safety matters that need to be weighed against the provision of the additional 14 parking spaces the angle parking would provide:

·   Pedestrian safety - associated with the existing former Riccarton Borough Council style covered channels.

·   Road safety - angle parking requires the motorist to reverse blindly into the live traffic lane.

Pedestrian Safety

5.5       There are no kerb up stands in this section of Elizabeth Street. Road drainage is achieved by covered channels so there is not a height differentiation between the carriageway and the footpath. With a standard kerb, when the vehicle is parked at 90 degrees the tyres bump against the kerb stopping the vehicle from rolling onto the footpath, however with the former Riccarton Borough type covered channel, there is nothing to stop the vehicles forward movement when parking and the driver must guess where to stop. If the driver is expecting the bump of the tyre against the kerb this will not happen and the vehicle will role forward and could endanger footpath users. Additionally, if not parked correctly, the vehicle could impede users of the footpath.

5.6       Wheel stops were considered however these were ruled out because the cost to purchase and install them would make the 14 additional spaces very costly. Wheel stops are a trip hazard to pedestrians who walk between the vehicles where ever we have used them where the desire line is to cross the wheel stop and as a result there have been numerous tripping accidents.

Road Safety

5.7       When a motorist reverses out of an angled parking space they do so blindly until the rear two thirds of their vehicle has passed the vehicle parked on either side of them, only then can they see if there are cyclists or other vehicles moving along the road. It is current best engineering practice to provide a buffer zone to the rear of the angled parking spaces however there is insufficient road space to provide a buffer zone on Elizabeth Street.

5.8       Weighing the benefits of the provision of additional kerbside parking against the disbenefits of the reduction in safety to pedestrians, cyclists and motorized traffic using this section of Elizabeth Street, has resulted in staff not recommending changes to the current parking layout within Elizabeth Street.


6.      Option 1 – Do Nothing (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Make no change to the existing parallel parking along Elizabeth Street.

Significance

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

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       Community consultation on the Elizabeth Street (Clarence Street to Picton Avenue) angled parking proposal was undertaken from Wednesday 6 July to Wednesday 20 July 2016.

6.4.1   A total of 50 leaflets were hand delivered to Elizabeth Street (between Clarence Street and Picton Avenue). The leaflet was also sent to 104 key stakeholders and 38 absentee owners.

6.4.2   During the course of the engagement, the Council received 34 submissions. 24 respondents were in support of the proposed angled parking, eight respondents did not support the proposal and two respondents did not state their preference.

6.5       Eight respondents did not support the proposal to install angled parking on Elizabeth Street. This included four property owners/tenants, three respondents who did not live in the area and a neighbour to the street.

Their feedback included:

·    Reversing vehicle movements increases traffic hazards for other cars and cyclists

·    Increased likelihood of crashes by vehicles reversing out into live traffic lanes

·    SUV type vehicles will restrict visibility for other reversing vehicles and their view of cyclists using the narrowed 6 metre two way lane

·    Entering the car parks would take up the opposite side of the road

·    Impaired visibility for vehicles exiting driveways on the southern side

·    Cars will encroach over the existing footpath with no wheel stops or covered channels

·    Vehicle overhang means footpaths will no longer meet the minimum 1.5 metre width

·    Health and safety concerns for pedestrians using the footpath without an effective wheel stop (which is a hazard in itself particularly at night)

·    Parking is typical of commercial zones and incompatible with living zones

·    Parked vehicles will detract from visual appeal

·    Amenity values lowered by public space being used for parking

·    Do not need more car parks, need people living in medium density zones to make better transport choices

·    Sets a precedent for changed parking in Riccarton Living 4 Zone

·    Developers should be required to provide more than one off street car park. There is not enough off street parking for the blocks of units they build

·    Increased parking will encourage all day parking by workers

·    There are still kerb side parks available in the evenings currently

·    This proposal impacts on refuse collection

6.6       24 respondents supported the proposal. This included 13 owners/tenants (seven of which related to one property), nine respondents who lived out of the area, a neighbour to the street, and a nearby business.

Their feedback included:

·    Angle parking would make it a lot easier

·    Generally support the plan

·    Request parking improvements be installed at the earliest possible opportunity

·    Currently have significant difficulty finding suitable parking

·    Insufficient parking for residents and visitors so people park on the grass berm

·    Very practical, low cost solution

·    Lack of all-day parking currently for people working in the area

·    Restricted parking during the day to stop all-day parkers

·    Could issue parking notices to be displayed by residents to restrict parking

·    Should be enough parks for all houses, not nearby workers

·    This problem affects more than just Elizabeth Street, streets surrounding have the same problem

·    High proportion of infill housing has put unreasonable pressure on street parking

·    Proposal is consistent with Council’s medium density dwelling provisions

·    How will this affect rubbish collection

·    Do away with permanent parking on the north side of the street to be kept free for trade and emergency vehicles. All rubbish bins from south side residents could then be placed on the north side of the street for collection

6.7       Two respondents did not state their preference on the proposal. This included an owner/tenant and a business.

Their feedback included:

·    The proposal should only go ahead if both ends of the street are narrowed or one end is closed to reduce traffic speeding off Clarence Street and using Elizabeth Street

·    No concerns with the proposal

6.8       A letter has been sent to all submitters advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights. Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback summary with project team responses.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies in that it prioritises the safety of all road users above the provision of additional kerb side parking

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – There is no cost associated with the preferred option

6.11    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – There are no additional ongoing costs

6.12    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.13    The Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 provides the Council with the authority to install parking restrictions.

6.14    The installation of traffic control devices must comply with the Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004.

6.15    Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations which includes the resolution of stopping, parking restrictions and parking changes.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    Subject to Community Board approval

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.18    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Prioritising the safety of all road users above the perceived need for additional kerb side parking

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Additional parking spaces will not be provided


 

7.   Option 2 – Install 90 degree angle parking

Option Description

7.1       Install 90 degree angle parking on the south side of Elizabeth Street between Picton Avenue and Clarence Street. This would create 14 additional parking spaces.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Refer to Sections 6.4 to 6.8 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – This option fails to meet the 2nd goal of the Christchurch Strategic Transport Plan: Create safe, healthy and liveable communities and its associated Strong Community Outcome: Transport safety is improved; risks to public health and injury are minimised 

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – See sections 5.5 to 5.7 above

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – approximately $1,400

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – would be covered under existing Pavement Maintenance budget.

7.8       Funding source – Traffic Operations line marking budget

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.9 to 6.11 above

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    See section 6.12 above

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Decision

7.12    Implementation timeframe – If the Board chose this option, implementation would be four to six weeks from the Board’s decision

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   14 additional parking spaces will be provided on the south side of Elizabeth Street between Picton Avenue and Clarence Street.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Traffic safety would be decreased within Elizabeth Street creating a risk to public health and of injury.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2016/07/28 Plan Elizabeth Street Angle Parking proposal

18

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Katie Chapman - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

8.        Tenahaun Place - Proposed Parking Restrictions and P15 Parking Restriction (Goods Vehicles Only)

Reference:

16/929857

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve that No Stopping restrictions and a P15 Goods Vehicles Only parking restriction be installed in Tenahaun Place in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a request from a business owner asking that the Council address the congestion in the street caused by queuing trucks.

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 comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve:

1.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north east side of Jipcho Road commencing at its intersection with Tenahaun Place and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

2.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north east side of Jipcho Road commencing at its intersection with Tenahaun Place and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

3.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north west side of Tenahaun Place commencing at its intersection with Jipcho Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

4.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south east side of Tenahaun Place commencing at its intersection with Jipcho Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 24 metres.

5.         That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north west side of Tenahaun Place commencing at a point 75 metres north east of its intersection with Jipcho Road and extending initially in a north easterly direction then around the cul-de-sac head in a clockwise direction for a distance of 68 metres ending opposite the starting point on the south east side of Tenahaun Place.

6.         That the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 15 minutes (Goods Vehicles Only) on the north west side of Tenahaun Place commencing at a point 50 metres north east of its intersection with Jipcho Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

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 P15 Goods Vehicles Only Parking Restriction and 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:

·     Installing the P15 will create a safer road environment in Tenahaun Place

·     It balances the needs of business and the demand for kerbside parking which is restricting business operation in the street.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

This will displace approximately five commuter vehicles that park all day in Tenahaun Place.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Tenahaun Place is a 100 metre long industrial cul-de-sac located just below the Curletts Road over bridge within the Business 5 General Industrial zone. Located within Tenahaun Place is Harrington’s Brewery, a truck wash and a number of other businesses.

5.2       On any given week day, commuter parking within Tenahaun Place takes up all available kerb space to the extent that it is affecting the operation of businesses within the street. Often vehicles park within the cul-de-sac turning head, which makes it difficult for truck and trailer units to service the industrial business within the street.

5.3       A truck wash is located at the eastern end of Tenahaun Place, it is not uncommon for trucks to queue beside parked commuter vehicles waiting to enter the wash. This forces traffic to the southern side of the street and impacts on the safe operation of Tenahaun Place.

5.4       The Council’s Parking Strategy 2003 prioritises parking for business needs above commuter parking in industrial areas where demand exceeds supply.

5.5       The proposed P15 goods vehicles parking restriction will provide some kerbside space for the short stay parking of goods vehicles servicing the street and for the odd truck waiting for the truck wash. It will also retain the majority of kerb side space unrestricted for commuter vehicles.

5.6       No stopping restrictions are proposed at the intersection of Tenahaun Place and Jipcho Road and at the cul-de-sac turning head for safety reasons and the ease of movement to heavy vehicles servicing the street.

 

6.   Option 1 – Install P15 Goods Vehicle Parking Restriction and No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

Option Description

6.1       Install P15 Goods Vehicles Only Parking restriction and No Stopping restrictions in Tenahaun Place as shown on attachment A

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       All eight businesses within the street were spoken to by staff who delivered a plan of the proposal.

6.5       All eight businesses support the proposal, some stating it is a “no brainer and about time”

6.6       Following staff visiting Harrington’s management they were contacted by an employee of Harrington’s who parks on the street and who opposes the proposal. Although this submission was made on Harrington’s letter head, staff have checked with Harrington’s management and this is not the view of Harrington’s Breweries.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation is approximately $600

6.9       Maintenance/Ongoing costs are covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect of the proposal will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board approval

6.16    Implementation timeframe – Approximately four weeks from the contractor receiving instructions.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improving the operation and safety of all road users in this street.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The loss of approximately five kerbside parking spaces.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Main the status quo in Tenahaun Place; do not install proposed restrictions.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See sections 6.4 to 6.6 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Objective 2.3 of The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – doing nothing does not contribute to network efficiency, save lives and the reduction of injuries.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       See sections 6.11 to 6.13 above

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:

·   Retains existing unrestricted parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address identified safety and efficiency issues identified within Tenahaun Place.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Tenahaun Place P15 Goods Service Vehicles and No Stopping Restrictions

25

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

9.        Harakeke Street/Kilmarnock Street/Jane Deans Close - Proposed Parking Changes

Reference:

16/797441

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to consider approving the installation of parking restrictions on Harakeke Street, Kilmarnock Street and Jane Deans Close in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

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

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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

Revoking Harakeke Street (Riccarton Road to Kilmarnock Street)

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Kilmarnock Street be revoked.

Harakeke Street (Riccarton to Kilmarnock Street (west side)

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 57 metres north of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

5.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 152 metres north of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 28 metres.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 233 metres north of its intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres to its intersection with Kilmarnock Street.

Harakeke Street (Riccarton Road to Kilmarnock Street (east side)

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 57 metres north of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

9.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 95 metres north of its intersection with Riccarton Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 138 metres.

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 233 metres north of its intersection and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 10 metres to its intersection with Kilmarnock Street.

Revoking Harakeke Street (Kilmarnock Street to Matai Street West (both sides)

11.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Matai Street West be revoked.

Harakeke Street (Kilmarnock Street to Matai Street West (west side)

12.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

13.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 112 metres.

14.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 132 metres north of its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres to its intersection with Matai Street West.

Harakeke Street (Kilmarnock Street to Matai Street West (east side)

15.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

16.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Harakeke Street commencing at a point 132 metres north of its intersection with Kilmarnock Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres to its intersection with Matai Street West.

Revoking Kilmarnock Street (Straven Road to Harakeke Street)

17.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Straven Road, be revoked.

Kilmarnock Street (Straven Road to Harakeke Street (south side)

18.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

19.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 110 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 72 metres.

20.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 182 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of seven metres.

21.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 189 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

22.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 204 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 51 metres to its intersection with Straven Road.

Kilmarnock Street (Straven Street to Harakeke Road (north side)

23.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

24.       Approve that parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 14 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 104 metres.

25.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 169 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

26.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 180 metres west of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 83 metres to its intersection with Straven Road.

Revoking Kilmarnock Street (east of Harakeke Street (south side)

27.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 69 metres, be revoked.

Kilmarnock Street (east of Harakeke Street (south side)

28.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

29.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 14 metres east of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 39 metres.

30.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the southern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 53 metres east of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

Revoking Kilmarnock Street (east of Harakeke Street (north side)

31.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 174 metres be revoked.

Kilmarnock Street (east of Harakeke Street (north side)

32.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

33.       Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 33 metres east of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

34.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the northern side of Kilmarnock Street commencing at a point 107 metres east of its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 67 metres.

Revoking Jane Deans Close

35.       Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Janes Deans Close extending from its intersection with Harakeke Street to the head of the cul-de-sac, including the 60 degree angle parking within the parking island at the end of the cul-de-sac, be revoked.

Jane Deans Close (north and west sides)

36.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern and western side of Jane Deans Close, commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending along the northern kerb line in an easterly and then a northerly direction for a distance of 169 metres in accordance with Attachment A (ending outside number 10).

37.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern side of Jane Deans Close, commencing at its intersection with Harakeke Street and extending along the southern kerb line in an easterly direction for a distance of 93 metres in accordance with Attachment A (ending outside number 5).

38.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the southern and eastern side of Jane Deans Close, commencing at a distance of 93 metres from its intersection with Harakeke Street measured along the southern kerb line, and extending in an easterly and then a northerly direction for a distance of 94 metres along the kerb line in accordance with Attachment A (from number 5 to number 21)

39.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 60 degree angle parking, and be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes for the four parking spaces within the teardrop shaped parking island at the end of the Jane Deans cul-de-sac.

 

 

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 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:

·     Responds positively to requests from members of the community

·     Provides more parking opportunities during the day by restricting all day commuter parking to one side of the street.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Forces all day commuter parking into neighbouring streets.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has received requests from residents for all day parking to be managed on Harakeke Street in Riccarton, between Riccarton Road and Kilmarnock Street.

5.2       Harakeke Street is a residential local road with a traffic volume of 1128 vehicles per day (2012, measured outside Christchurch Boys’ High School hostels, North of Matai Street West). Harakeke Street has traffic calming measures that were installed in 2007/2008 as part of a kerb and channel replacement program.

5.3       Jane Deans Close is a residential No Exit cul-de-sac off Harakeke Street between Riccarton Road and Kilmarnock Street.

5.4       Kilmarnock Street is a minor Arterial Road connecting Straven Road to Deans Avenue, with an average traffic volume of 11,767 vehicles per weekday (May 2011, measured at the railway crossing).

5.5       Due to the close proximity to the businesses situated along Riccarton Road, Harakeke Street and the surrounding streets are daily parked full of vehicles belonging to commuters who work in the area. This makes it difficult for residents or their visitors returning during the day to park in the street.

5.6       Installing staggered P120 parking restrictions as indicated on Attachment A provides some two hour day time parking for residents and their visitors and retains a similar amount of all day parking for residents or others who wish to leave a vehicle on the street.

5.7       The proposed P120 parking restrictions will operate from 8am to 6pm seven days a week. This permits a resident to park within the restricted P120 area at 4pm in the afternoon of any day leave their vehicle overnight and they do not have to move it until 10am the following day. If a resident wishes to leave their vehicle for longer periods on the street they can do so in an unrestricted zone either outside their house or directly across the road.

5.8       The Christchurch City Council Parking Strategy 2003 prioritises allocation of kerbside parking space for residents parking over commuter parking in all cases where supply exceeds demand.

 

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install Staggered P120 Parking Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install parking restrictions on Harakeke Street, Kilmarnock Street and Jane Deans Close in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Community consultation on the Harakeke Street, Kilmarnock Street and Jane Deans Close proposed parking restrictions was undertaken from Wednesday 27 July to Wednesday 17 August 2016.

6.5       A total of 380 leaflets were hand delivered to properties between Straven Road, Matai Street West/Mona Vale Avenue, Avon River and Riccarton Road. Businesses on the south side of Riccarton Road between Straven Road and Mona Vale Avenue were also included in the distribution. In addition, the leaflet was sent to 57 key stakeholders and 168 absentee owners.

6.6       During the course of the engagement, the Council received 71 submissions. 40 respondents were in support of the proposal, 29 respondents did not support the proposal and two respondents did not state their preference.

6.7       During the consultation, the following feedback was received:

·    The transfer of parking to nearby streets including Matai Street West, Nikau Place and further north on Harakeke Street creates another issue

·    Disagree with the loss of all-day parking for people working in the nearby businesses on Riccarton Road

·    Disagree with the loss of all-day parking for residents who don’t have enough off-street parking for extra cars and/or their visitors who stay longer than 120 minutes

·    Requests for resident only parking (including their visitors) or resident parking stickers which allow them to park within the P120 restrictions unaffected

·    P120 restrictions should only apply Monday to Friday and take into account events such as the Santa Parade

·    Requests for extended no stopping lines at the intersection of Kilmarnock Street and Harakeke Street due to visibility restrictions

·    Request to extend no stopping lines on the Harakeke Street/Jane Deans Close intersection

·    Requests to extend the proposal to include Matai Street West, Nikau Place and Harakeke Street north of Matai Street West

·    Agree with the proposal if there will be effective parking enforcement

·    P120 parking should be outside the kindergarten on Harakeke Street adjacent to the existing P10 drop off area

·    Existing lines need to be repainted in the area proposed

·    Whether 30km speed restrictions could be imposed in the area

·    If P240 was an option considered

·    The proposed amount of P120 parking could be reduced

·    If angled parking was an option considered

·    Vehicles parking too close to driveways – no stopping lines needed here for safe entry/exit

·    Residents have painted their own no-stopping lines on Jane Deans Close

6.8       The table below shows the number of mentions for each of the themes

 

6.9       After consultation, no changes has been made to the final plan for approval.

6.10    A letter has been sent to all submitters advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights. Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback summary with project team responses.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - $3000 for new parking signs.

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

6.14    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

6.17    The 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

6.18    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.19    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.20    Implementation timeframe - Approximately six weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   P120 parking restrictions as indicated on Attachment A provides some two hour day time parking for residents and their visitors and retains a similar amount of all day parking for residents or others who wish to leave a vehicle on the street.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Half of all commuters who currently park on Harakeke Street and Jane Deans Close will be displaced into adjoining other local streets in which demand for parking also exceeds supply.


 

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Make no changes to parking restrictions on Harakeke Street, Kilmarnock Street and Jane Deans Close.

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       Refer to sections 6.4 to 6.10 of this report

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Christchurch Parking Strategy 2003

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – doing nothing does not prioritise residents parking over commuter parking

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:

·   Maintaining the status quo will not displace commuter parking to adjoining streets

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Maintaining the status quo will not address residents’ concerns in a residential street.

·   This option is not in line with Council’s 2003 Parking Policy which prioritises residents parking and short stay parking above commuter parking.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Harakeke Street, Kilmarnock Street and Jane Deans Close - Proposed P120 For Board Approval

37

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Katie Chapman - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

10.    Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Remediation of Existing Bus Stops Concerning Road Markings and Layout Alterations

Reference:

16/944470

Contact:

Brenda O’Donoghue

brenda.odonoghue@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to correct the lack of bus stop road markings at 19 Kirk Road, and approve a bus stop layout alteration at 9 Nicholls Road, which will lead to the installation of a new layover bus stop adjacent to 344 Halswell Road (State Highway 75).  The location of the three bus stops is shown on Attachments A to C.

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The recommendations in this report runs in parallel to a separate bus passenger shelter report that is associated with the bus stops identified in this report.  The bus stops in this report have been investigated due to, but not limited to, the following reasons:

·   Deficiencies in bus stop road markings that have been identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015).

·   On-site observations that have indicated a need to address a performance or road safety issue.

·   Changes to the surrounding road network.

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 assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement assessment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         19 Kirk Road (Attachment A)

a.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the northwest side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Riwai Street and extending in a northbound direction for a distance of 31 metres, be revoked.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north west side of Kirk Road commencing at its intersection with Riwai Street and extending in a northbound direction for a distance of 12.7 metres.

c.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the northwest side of Kirk Road commencing at a point 12.7 metres north of its intersection with Riwai Street and extending in a north bound direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the north west side of Kirk Road commencing at a point 26.7 metres north of its intersection with Riwai Street and extending in a north bound direction for a distance of 4 metres.

2.         9 Nicholls Road (Attachment B)

a.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Nicholls Road commencing at a point 75 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Road and extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 68 metres, be revoked.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Nicholls Road commencing at a point 75 metres west of its Halswell Road and extending in a westbound direction for a distance of 8 metres.

c.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Nicholls Road commencing at a point 83 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Road and extending in a west bound direction for a distance of 38 metres.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Nicholls Road commencing at a point 121 metres west of its intersection with Halswell Road and extending in a west bound direction for a distance of 22 metres.

3.         344 Halswell Road (Attachment C)

a.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Halswell Road commencing at a point 61 metres south of its intersection with Nicholls Road, extending in a south bound direction for a distance of 33 metres, be revoked.

b.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the west side of Halswell Road commencing at a point 61 metres south of its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a south bound direction for a distance of 14 metres.

c.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the west side of Halswell Road commencing at a point 75 metres south of its intersection with Nicholls Road and extending in a south bound direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Authorisation of the proposed road marking alterations at 19 Kirk Road and 9 Nicholls Road.  Authorisation of a new layover bus stop at 344 Halswell Road.

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·     Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·     Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·     The proposed bus stop road marking improvements sit alongside proposed improvements to passenger waiting facilities (bus passenger shelter).

·     Improved road safety at 9 Nicholls Road.  The relocation of the layover bus stop provision from 9 Nicholls Road to 344 Halswell Road will improve the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the nearby supermarket driveway.  

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of four on-street parking spaces adjacent to 344 Halswell Road.  The impact is mitigated by the significant off street parking supply located nearby to the proposed layover bus stop. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background – Proposed Bus Stop Road Marking Alteration at 19 Kirk Road

5.1       The bus stop adjacent to 19 Kirk Road is an unmarked bus stop that has been in operation since 2001.

5.2       Although the bus stop is unmarked it is noted the approved bus stop resolution from the 2001 Community Board report for this bus stop was worded “That a bus stop be installed on the eastern side of Kirk Road commencing at a point 17 metres from its intersection with Riwai Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres (19/21 Kirk Road)”.

5.3       At the time of the 2001 Community Board approval, bus stops measuring 12 metres in length were considered sufficient for the type of bus vehicle servicing them.  A 12 metre bus stop is now acknowledged to be too short for the existing buses that currently use them.

5.4       This report seeks to amend the approved length of the bus stop to adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  The existing bus stop has been resolved to commence 17 metres from Riwai Street.  This is considered excessive and reduced to 12.7 metres for the proposed new longer bus stop.  This is to optimise the efficient use of road space so that the overall extension of the bus stop has a minimal two metre extension from what has been historically resolved.

Background – Proposed Bus Stop Road Marking Alteration at 9 Nicholls Road and Proposed Layover Bus Stop at 344 Halswell Road

5.5       Historically (circa 2012), the bus stop located adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road allowed for four buses to be stopped at any one time.  The significant amount of road spaces allotted to the bus stop reflected the number of bus lines that operated via Nicholls Road at that time. 

5.6       Due to the redevelopment of the New World supermarket located at 9 Nicholls Road, a number of changes have occurred to the location of driveways that necessitate the bus stop layout to be amended to better suit the current roading environment. 

5.7       The bus stop at 9 Nicholls Road is serviced by the Orange line (Halswell via the City Centre to Queenspark), the number (#) 125 bus line (Redwood via the airport to Halswell), and a limited service school bus line (Halswell to Upper Riccarton schools).  The bus stop is used as a timing point for the Orange line, a layover location for #125, and a driver change over point for the #125 bus line.

5.8       Environment Canterbury (ECan) have requested that sufficient capacity is retained for three buses to be stopped at any one time, which is a reflection of the continued importance that this bus stop plays in servicing the surrounding Halswell community.

5.9       Due road space constraints, and driver sight line considerations at the nearby supermarket driveway, the bus stop adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road has enough space to safety allow two buses to be stopped at any one time.  As such this is why a third space is proposed adjacent to 344 Halswell Road.

5.10    The bus stop at 344 Halswell Road is located on State Highway 75.  The New Zealand Transport Agency is the road controlling authority for state highways, they have however delegated the authorisation of bus stops to the Christchurch City Council.  The New Zealand Transport Agency have been contacted about the proposed layover bus stop at 344 Halswell Road, and are supportive of the proposal.  The New Zealand Transport Agency will ratify their ‘no stopping’ parking restrictions to accommodate the ‘no stopping’ parking restrictions proposed in this report.

Public Consultation

5.11    The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed bus stops.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand to the properties listed below.  The consultation period commenced on Thursday 4 August 2016 and finished on Thursday 18 August 2016.

5.11.1   9 Nicholls Road* and 344 Halswell Road (*Includes Foodstuffs).

5.11.2    19 and 21 Kirk Road.

5.12    Of the properties listed above, the owners of 19 Kirk Road have contacted staff to object to the proposed bus stop road marking alterations.  Foodstuff have contacted staff to provide their approval to the bus stop road marking alteration adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road and a new layover bus stop adjacent to 344 Halswell Road.  Further information about the consultation and feedback is provided in Section 6 of this report.  No responses were received from the property owners/tenants of the remaining properties listed above.


 

6.   Option 1 - Authorisation of the proposed road marking alterations at 19 Kirk Road and 9 Nicholls Road.  Authorisation of a new layover bus stop at 344 Halswell Road.

Option Description

6.1       As shown in Attachments A to C, the recommended bus stop locations are adjacent to 19 Kirk Road, 9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road.

6.2       The type of bus stop provided for in all locations, is a 'kerb-side' bus stop, located directly adjacent to the footpath.  Provision of the necessary entry taper, bus box and exit taper, that adheres to the recommended provisions as set out in the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) is achievable at all locations. 

6.3       There is a unrestricted full height kerb present along the full length of the bus stop at 9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road. 

6.4       At 19 Kirk Road the bus stop is adjacent to an open dish channel, with no channel cover blocks provided.  Channel cover blocks will be provided along the full length of the area used for boarding and alighting.  In instances where a bus stop is located adjacent to dish channel, it will not be possible to achieve the minimum recommended kerb height, until such time as the dish channel is upgraded to a flat??kerb and channel.

6.5       The location of the bus stop adjacent to 19 Kirk Road does not negatively impact driver sightlines at the nearby street, Riwai Street.  A 10 year crash analysis study was undertaken of the intersection of Kirk Road with Riwai Street, using the New Zealand Transport Agency’s, Crash Analysis System.  No crashes were reported during the 10 year crash analysis period.  The existing bus stop is located on the left hand side of the intersection, which is the preferred location to site a bus stop.  Drivers approaching Kirk Road from Riwai Street have a clear line of site to firstly observe if a vehicle is approaching from the right.  The geometry of the Kirk Road/ Riwai Street intersection allows for wide traffic lanes and large corning radii.  Such road geometry provides sufficient space for a vehicle to negotiate around a bus that has stopped, and sufficient space for a vehicle to safely judge if there is a gap in traffic approaching from the left.

6.6       The alteration to the bus stop adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road will improve the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the nearby supermarket driveway.  This alteration is supported by Foodstuffs.  The proposed layover bus stop adjacent to 344 Halswell Road will not impact driver sight lines at the nearby driveways.

Significance

6.7       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with Section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with ECan as the relevant bus operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       As indicated in Section 5 above, consultation information regarding the proposed bus stop installation was mailed and delivered by hand to the property owners and tenants of the properties listed below.  The consultation period commenced on 4 August 2016 and finished on 18 August 2016.

·   9 Nicholls Road* and 344 Halswell Road (*Includes Foodstuffs).

·   19 and 21 Kirk Road.

6.10    Of the properties listed above, the owners of 19 Kirk Road have contacted staff to object to the proposed bus stop road marking alterations.  Foodstuff have contacted staff to provide their approval to the bus stop road marking alteration adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road and a new layover bus stop adjacent to 344 Halswell Road.  No responses were received from the property owners/tenants of the remaining properties listed above.

Consultation – 19 Kirk Road

6.11    The owner/occupier of 19 Kirk Road has objected to the proposed bus stop road markings.  The objector indicated in the feedback form that the “They are too close to Riwai Street corner.  The bus, when parked, is a danger for people turning left into Kirk Road from Riwai Street”.

6.12    It is possible that the potential issue of a bus parking too close to Riwai Street might be due to the bus stop currently being unmarked.  Currently, the bus drivers are provided with little guidance on exactly where to stop.  Installing road marking would provide guidance to the bus driver on where to stop.

6.13    With the proposed road markings the separation between the rear of a bus that has stopped and the intersection would measure about 13 metres.  In addition to the traffic engineering preference that bus stops are located to the left of an intersection, the 13 metre separation provides sufficient space for a vehicle turning left from Riwai Street, to safely manoeuvre around the bus.

6.14    As referred to in Section 6.5, no crashes have been lodged with the New Zealand Transport Agency’s, Crash Analysis System in the past 10 years.  The absence of crash records and the suitable road geometry does not indicate that this is an unsafe location to continue to operate as a bus stop.

Consultation – 9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road

6.15    Positive feedback was provided by the representatives of Foodstuffs, who have had concerns that the operation of the existing bus stop layout restricts the clear line of sight that is available for drivers exiting the nearby supermarket driveway.  As such, they are pleased with the altered bus stop layout, inclusive of the layover bus stop at 344 Halswell Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.17    Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost of this proposal is $3,000, exclusive of GST.

6.18    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

6.19    Funding source - Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installation.

Legal Implications

6.20    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Community Board.

6.21    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

6.22    The bus stops at 9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road adhere to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  The bus stop at 19 Kirk Road does not adhere to the guidelines minimum recommendations, as the bus stop is located adjacent to an open dish channel, where the minimum recommended kerb height currently cannot be readily achieved.

Risks and Mitigations

6.23    Road users continue to park in the marked bus stop box and on the 'No Stopping' lines.  The risk is mitigated by vehicle users obeying the road rules, or by parking enforcement, if deemed necessary.

Implementation

6.24    Implementation dependencies -The implementation is dependent on the Community Board approving the recommendations as described in Section 3.

6.25    Implementation timeframe-  Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.26    The advantages of this option include:

·   Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·   Provision the recommended bus stop length also has the potential to improve operational performance of the bus lines that use the bus stop.

·   The proposed bus stop road marking improvements sit alongside proposed improvements to passenger waiting facilities.

·   Improved road safety at 9 Nicholls Road.  The relocation of the layover bus stop provision from 9 Nicholls Road to 344 Halswell Road will improve the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the nearby supermarket driveway.

6.27    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of four on-street parking spaces adjacent to 344 Halswell Road.  The impact is mitigated by the significant off-street parking supply located nearby to the proposed layover bus stop. 


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing, existing bus stops road marking are not amended to adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines, and the bus stop layout at 9 Nicholls Road is left as is.

Significance

7.2       Refer to section 6.7.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       Refer to section 6.8.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Refer to sections 6.9 to 6.15.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   This option is inconsistent with the Long Term Plan as it does not ensure adherence to the bus stop road marking minimum recommends as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).  Lack of adherence to the recommended road marking has the potential to affect how the bus can pull into a bus stop in a safe and efficient manner, and how close to the kerb the bus can stop to pick-up or set-down passengers.

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       The lack of or insufficient length of a marked bus stop does not adhere to the bus stop road marking recommendations as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    The existing bus stop operation adjacent to 9 Nicholls Road, which is used by a bus line that lays over, has the potential to block the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the nearby supermarket driveway.  The impact on the clear line of sight from the supermarket driveway could be mitigated by requiring the bus that has to layover, to stop at the rear of the bus stop.  By fixing the layover stop to the rear of the bus stop reduces the operational space for buses in front of it.  ECan have indicated that this bus stop should retain its existing capacity of allowing three buses to be stopped at any one time.  This potential mitigation would reduce the practical capacity of the bus stop from three spaces to two spaces, which could pose a risk to the functionality of this bus stop to the buses that operate from it.

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:

·   Does not remove any on-street parking

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Refer to section 7.10.

·   The lack of bus stop road markings at 19 Kirk Road continues to not adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Lack of adherence to the recommended bus stop length does not provide the potential to improve passenger accessibility, or provide improvements to the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   It does not take advantage of other public transport work scheduled to improve passenger waiting facilities at the time of writing.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

For Approval - Bus Stop Plan - 19 - 21 Kirk Road

48

b

For Approval - Bus Stop Plan - 9 Nicholls Road

49

c

For Approval - Bus Stop Plan - 344 Halswell Road

50

d

Overview of bus stop locations at 9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road

51

 

 

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

Brenda  ODonoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

11.    Riccarton/Wigram - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Reference:

16/912660

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 Riccarton/Wigram Community Board to approve the installation of bus passenger shelters at existing bus stops located at 90 Wharenui Road and 9 Nicholls Road that have received no objection by the owner or occupier of the adjacent property.

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 Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

1.         Receive the information in the staff report.

2.         Approve the installation of a bus shelter at the following locations:

a.         90 Wharenui Road, and

b.         9 Nicholls Road.

 

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 90 Wharenui Road, and 9 Nicholls Road, adjacent to existing bus stops, 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/weekday), as indicated in the following list:

·   22 ave. pax/weekday for 90 Wharenui Road, and

·   168 ave. pax/weekday for 9 Nicholls Road

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 this shelter 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 Thursday 4 August 2016 to Thursday 18 August 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished one of the listed owners/occupiers of 9 Nicholls Road (Foodstuffs) returned their feedback form indicating approval to have a bus passenger shelter installed. No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers at 90 Wharenui Road.

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 90 Wharenui Road and 9 Nicholls Road.  All proposed shelters are adjacent to an existing bus stop.

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 to each property listed below on 4 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 18 August 2016.

·   Wharenui Road shelter:  90 Wharenui Road, and

·   Nicholls Road shelter:  9 Nicholls Road and 344 Halswell Road

6.5       As indicated in section 5.6, one of the listed owners/occupiers of 9 Nicholls Road (Foodstuffs) returned their feedback form indicating approval to have a bus passenger shelter installed.  No feedback has been received from the adjacent property owners/occupiers at 90 Wharenui Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – The supply and installation of the bus passenger shelter, in additional to other bus stop remedial work is estimated to cost $18,000. 

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 Riccarton/Wigram 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 the 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 - 90 Wharenui Road

59

b

Bus Shelter Plan for Approval - 9 Nicholls Road

60

 

 

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

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

12.    Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre Café - New Lease and Surrender

Reference:

16/889630

Contact:

Luke Rees-Thomas

luke.reesthomas@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8504

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

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

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

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

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board resolve to:

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

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

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

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

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1 Provide community facilities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

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

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

5.   Context/Background

Facility Opening and Existing Café Lease

1.1       Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing of New Operator and Lease Requirements

5.2       Request for Proposals (RFP) Process

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·     Sufficient café ownership experience and positive trading history.

·     Demonstrated expertise in providing a personable service to customers.

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

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

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

·     A high quality, diverse and affordable menu.

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

 

·   The Evaluation Panel is confident in the ability of ‘Xin Ding Yi Limited’ to carry out its proposed methodology and to provide a successful and welcoming community café for patrons of the facility.

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

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

5.3       Lease Terms

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

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

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

a)    Base rental = Market rent

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

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

5.4       Existing Operator Lease Surrender and Handover:

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.5       Delegations

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

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

4.8.1   The land has been correctly identified;

4.8.2   The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

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

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

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

 

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

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


 

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

Option Description

6.1       The Community Board will resolve to;

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

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

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation – Staff time and lease documentation

6.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Nil

6.8       Funding source – Existing budgets

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

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

6.12    Implementation timeframe – three (3) months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

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

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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


 

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

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Nil

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Nil

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre - Cafe Lease Plan

70

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Carolyn Robertson - Head of Libraries and Information

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

13.    Riccarton/Wigram Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/942933

Contact:

Emily Toase

emily.toase@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

1.         Consider and make decisions on the applications received for Neighbourhood Week 2016 funding as set out below:

 

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

1.

Margaret Bennie

BBQ

25

$140

2.

Belinda Carter, Rewi Alley School

Open day with barbecue and activities

100+

$100

3.

Barbara Helen Tie

BBQ

30

$70

4.

Malcolm Walter Lilley, Halswell/Candys Rd Neighbourhood Support Group

Families' get-together and barbecue

25-30

$165

5.

Rachel Nicola McErlain

Street BBQ get-together

40

$90

6.

Danielle Jill Hide, Hornby Toy Library

Family event / sausage sizzle

30+

$90

7.

David Kingsley Chapple, Northwest Neighbourhood Support Group

Brunch

20-28

$30

8.

Shani Annand-Baron, Ray White Real Estate

Neighbourhood BBQ

50

$140

9.

Tina Joanne Gibson, Country Palms Drive North Neighbourhood Support Group

BBQ/picnic/fun day at playground

100

$140

10.

Joanne Elize Wall, Corsair Drive Neighbourhood Support Group

Cricket and petanque games

10-15

$80

11.

Dulcie May
Tester

Street get-together/ BBQ – meet neighbours

50-55

$140

12.

Kevin John Bennett

Street BBQ to meet and introduce new neighbours`50+

50+

$190

13.

Julie Ann Young, Westside ACTS Church

Afternoon of games, races, face painting, BBQ

200-250

$600

14.

Richard Meekin, Antonia Place Neighbourhood Group

BBQ

27

$85

15.

Wendy Weusten, Avonhead Baptist Church

Community BBQ

200

$400

16.

Alison Maccoll, Kennedys Bush Rd Neighbourhood Association

Annual community Christmas party/BBQ

200

$400

17.

Claire Mary Russell

BBQ

35-40

$90

18.

Hazel Gatehouse, Puriri Street Neighbourhood Support Group

BBQ/ afternoon tea with talk

70

$170

19.

Craig Andre Savage, Ilam Seventh-day Adventist Church

Open home with free community health checks

250

$450

20.

Neville R Watson, Peerswick Neighbourhood Support Group

BBQ

50

$90

21.

Andrea Tisch, Ilam Baptist Church

Sausage sizzle

200

$190

22.

David Garry Chamberlain

BBQ

60

$75

23.

Rex Clifford Wright, Kintyre Drive Group

Meet and greet with afternoon tea

26

$75

 

 

 

 

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, 20 applications had been received.  A further three applications were received after the closing date, and have been included in the attached matrix for the Board's consideration.  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 over the allocation recommendations according to the amounts applied for and the number of people estimated to be attending the events.

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

4.6       At its meeting on 19 July 2016, the Board allocated $4,000 for Neighbourhood Week events in 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Riccarton/Wigram 2016 Neighbourhood Week - Decision Matrix

76

b

2016 Neighbourhood Week Guidelines

78

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 

14.    Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report - September 2016

Reference:

16/368576

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Update from Peter Dow – Community Board Adviser

1.1.1   Riccarton/Wigram Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee

Attached are the minutes of the Riccarton/Wigram Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting held on 10 August 2016 to consider and make delegated decisions on the applications received for funding. 

1.1.2   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board – Submissions Committee – 17 August 2016

Attached are the minutes of the Submissions Committee meeting held on 17 August 2016 to consider the preparation of the Board’s feedback on the Council’s Development Contributions Policy 2015 – Proposed Amendments 2016.

1.1.3   Riccarton/Wigram Community Board – Submissions Committee 31 August 2016

Attached are the minutes of the Submissions Committee meeting held on 31 August 2016 to consider the preparation of the Board’s feedback on the Council’s Draft Suburban Car Parking Policy – Issues and Options Discussion Document.

1.2       Update from Karla Gunby - Community Development Adviser

1.2.1   I am working with the Library and Recreation teams, as well as representatives from the community, to put on an event celebrating the one year anniversary of the opening of
Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre.  This will be on 26 November 2016.

1.2.2   The Christchurch Community Response Team is currently door knocking in the Halswell area.  They hope to be finished by mid October.

1.2.3   I am working with the Hornby East Triangle Residents’ Association (HERTA) on their viability and capacity, as they review whether or not they will go into recess.

1.2.4   I am assisting the Halswell Lions with their display of Halswell history in Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre during Heritage Week. 

1.2.5   Emily Toase and I are working with the Migrant Centre to assist in the sustainability of the Chinese Support Group run on a Tuesday and Wednesday morning at Harvard Lounge.

1.2.6   I am working with community members and MP Megan Woods’s office to run a crime prevention awareness evening in the Wigram Skies area. 

1.3       Update from Marie Byrne - Community Development Adviser

1.3.1   I continue to work with the Neighbourhood Policing Team in its transition out of the area.  One such example is assisting with monthly Community Crime Prevention and Safety meetings that are being held at Wharenui School.

1.3.2   I will be supporting the Ruapuna Community Liaison Committee that has been set up as a result of the Environment Court decision.  The Council confirmed the Board's nomination of Cr Jimmy Chen as the Council representative on this committee. 

1.3.3   I facilitate the two monthly Riccarton Liaison meeting which is held at the Petersgate Counselling Centre.  The next meeting will be held on 28 September 2016. 

1.3.4   I continue to work with Residents' Groups in the area as they request assistance with a variety of matters including capacity building.

1.4       Update from Emily Toase - Community Recreation Adviser

1.4.1   I have started to work with the Oak Development Trust to organise the Our Riccarton, Our Community, Lets Have Fun Day planning and booking the recreational activities that will be delivered at the event.

1.4.2   I am working with the Council’s Engagement Team to run a drop in session at Halswell Domain which will be the first consultation event for the Halswell Skate Park.

1.4.3   I have attended a workshop to provide input for a submission on the Older People and Community Sport Plan 2016-2020.

1.4.4   I continue to work towards the planning and promotion of The Breeze Walking Festival with specific responsibility for the Halswell Quarry Orienteering Treasure Hunt and Chinese National Day Celebration.

1.4.5   I am working with Sport Canterbury’s Green Prescription team to advertise and extend its services to the Riccarton and Hornby areas.

2.   Funding Update

2.1       Attached for information, is the monthly status update of the Board's 2016/17 funding.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board decide:

1.         To receive the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Area Report, September 2016.

2.         That the minutes of the Riccarton/Wigram Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting of 10 August 2016, be received and noted for record purposes.

3.         That the minutes of the Board’s Submissions Committee meeting of 17 August 2016, be received and noted for record purposes.

4.         That the minutes of the Board’s Submissions Committee meeting of 31 August 2016, be received and noted for record purposes.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee Minutes

84

b

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 17 August 2016

91

c

Riccarton/Wigram Community Board Submissions Committee Minutes - 31 August 2016

95

d

Board Funding Update - September 2016

97

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Community Governance Manager

  


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


 


 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 


 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 September 2016

 

 


Riccarton/Wigram Community Board

13 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.