Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Friday 16 September 2016

Time:                                    8.00am

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Beckenham Service Centre,
66 Colombo Street, Beckenham

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Karolin Potter

Melanie Coker

Phil Clearwater

Helene Mautner

Tim Scandrett

Rik Tindall

 

 

15 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Faye Collins

Community Board Advisor

941 5108

faye.collins@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

 


 

 

Spreydon / Heathcote Community Board

Te Poari Hapori o Te Waimōkihi rāua ko Opāwaho

 

   Vision:

To be an active, visible, accessible, responsive, and imaginative Board that works with individuals and our communities for the common good.

 

Objectives:

 

1.  Te Poari Hapori o Te Waimōkihi rāua ko Opāwaho (the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board) honours the Treaty, the partnership it represents by the Crown and Tangata whenua / Maori and its inherent commitment to loyally and cooperatively act reasonably in the utmost good faith with one another.

 

2.  Actively engage and partner with ward communities to advocate for the protection and promotion of social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing.

 

3.  Encourage greater community participation and awareness of the heritage, ecological values, and recreational opportunities of the ward, which includes the Opāwaho/Heathcote River, Port Hills, parks, and reserves.

 

4.  Encourage the ward-wide participation of individuals and all communities, including majority and minority ethnicities, older and younger people, and people with disabilities in public and neighbourhood life.

 

5.  Promote and encourage participation in healthy lifestyles by providing opportunities for sport and recreational activities.

 

6.  Build safer, more robust communities by promoting and facilitating the development of positive neighbourhood identities and social connectedness.

 

7.  To practice and support partnership with the community, good governance, and participation in local body planning and processes.


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 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  

C       6.       Staff Briefings................................................................................................................. 11

STAFF REPORTS

CA     7.       Simeon Park  - Deed of Lease Approval to Canterbury Playcentre Association...... 13

C       8.       Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Spreydon / Heathcote..................... 21

C       9.       Proposed Layover Bus Stop - 20 Athelstan Street...................................................... 27

C       10.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications .................................................................................................................. 43

C       11.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Youth Achievement and Development Scheme Applications..................................................................................................... 49

C       12.     Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Area Report............................................... 53

B       13.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 55

B       14.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 55 

 

 


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 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 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Tuesday, 6 September 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Mr Jim King will address the Board on the proposed bus stop changes in Athelstan Street.

 

4.2

Ms Isabella Stainthorpe and Mr Jayden Roper will speak on behalf of the Spreydon Heathcote Youth Community Board.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

 

Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 6 September 2016

Time:                                    5.01pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Beckenham Service Centre,
66 Colombo Street, Beckenham

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Karolin Potter

Melanie Coker

Phil Clearwater

Helene Mautner

Tim Scandrett

Rik Tindall

 

 

1 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Faye Collins

Community Board Advisor

941 5108

faye.collins@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

 

 

presentation ofspreydon/heathcote community service award

 

Wayne Rissman was in attendance to receive a Spreydon/Heathcote Community Service Award in recognition of his work as a volunteer for Christchurch City Council’s “Off the Wall” graffiti programme. 
Mr Rissman was unable to attend the Board’s Community Service Awards ceremony in August.
On
presentation of the award, the Board acknowledged Mr Rissman’s hard work and commitment.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

   Part C

Community Board Resolved SHCB/2016/00097

That the apology from Tim Scandrett for early departure, be accepted.

 Helene Mautner/Rik Tindall                                                                                                                                   Carried

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved SHCB/2016/00098

That the minutes of the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Friday 19 August 2016, be confirmed.

Tim Scandrett/Melanie Coker                                                                                                                                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.   Staff Briefings

 

6.2       Repair Works to Pioneer Stadium

 

Part B

Jacqui Hibbs, Manager Area Recreation, Grant McLeod, Leader Operations Pioneer, and Kristine Bouw, Project Manager, updated the Board on the repair work to be undertaken at the Pioneer Leisure Centre Stadium.

The works are to repair earthquake damage and to undertake deferred maintenance.  The project is to be managed as part of the wider network operations to limit any impacts on customers. 

The Board noted the information supplied during the Staff Briefing.

 

6.1       Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub

Part B

David Bailey, Manager of Recreation Services, updated the Board on the development of the Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub.

The aim of the project team is to advance development so that at least some sports facilities will be available for use by sporting codes for the 2018 season. 

The Board noted the information supplied during the Staff Briefing.

 

7.   Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

7.1       Ernle Clark Reserve - Seat Location

             The  Board considered the staff advice provided in response to the deputation made to its meeting on 19 August 2016 regarding the location of a seat in Ernle Clark Reserve. 

 

             After discussion, the Board generally agreed that the seat not be relocated.

 

 

Community Board Resolved SHCB/2016/00099

Part B

The Board decided to receive the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Area Report including information on Board and community activities, the Consultation Calendar, a funding update and a Community Governance Team update.

Melanie Coker/Helene Mautner                                                                                                                          Carried

 

8.   Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received information from members on the following:

8.1       Traffic issues at St Martins School, Hillview Christian School, and Christchurch South              Intermediate School.

8.2       Community use of Huntsbury Reservoir is being facilitated.

Tim Scandrett left the meeting at 6:23 pm.

8.3       Notation of coastal hazards on Land Information Memoranda

 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

14.1 

14.2 

14.3 

8.4       Possible closure of Rowley Avenue School

Community Board Resolved SHCB/2016/00100

The Board decided to note with concern the possibility of the closure of the Rowley Avenue School, given its pivotal importance to the local community, particularly socially and culturally, and to follow the development of any proposals with a view to providing support to the community for  the retention of the school.

Karolin Potter/Phil Clearwater                                                                                                 Carried Unamimously

 

9.   Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6.43pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

Karolin Potter

Chairperson

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

6.        Staff Briefings

Reference:

16/1054904

Contact:

Faye Collins

Faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

SCIRT Update

Ross Herrett, Ian Campbell, Linda McGregor

Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT)

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

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

Reference:

16/596545

Contact:

Lisa Barwood

Lisa.barwood@ccc.govt.nz

941 8320

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to recommend that the Council grant a ground lease to Canterbury Playcentre Association over part of Simeon Park to establish a new playcentre for the Addington area.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by officers completing an assessment of the significance. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

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

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

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

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

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – Decline the lease request

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

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

·     People have strong social networks

·     Services are available locally within the urban areas

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

 

5.   Context/Background

History

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

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

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

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

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

The Land and Lease

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertising

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

6.   Option 1 – Grant a lease (preferred)

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

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

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

6.8       Funding source – not applicable to Council

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.13    The advantages of this option include:

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

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

·     People have strong social networks

·     Services are available locally within the urban areas

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

6.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

7.   Option 2 – Decline the lease request

Option Description

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

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

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency – contrary to Level of Service

7.5.3   Amendment necessary – change to Level of Service

Financial Implications

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

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

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

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

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not meeting the Council community outcomes and levels of service

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

BE1114 - Simeon Park - Addington Playcentre - Lease Plan 2016

19

b

Aerial View Simeon Park

20

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Lisa Barwood - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

8.        Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation - Spreydon / Heathcote

Reference:

16/912687

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 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located at 126 Halswell Road that has 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 submitted by the owner or occupier of an affected property, the relevant Community Board for that area has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the proposed shelter.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board resolve to:

1.         Receive the information in the staff report.

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

a.         126 Halswell 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 126 Halswell Road, adjacent to an existing bus stop, 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 and/or occupiers of properties adjacent to the proposed shelter. 

 

5.   Context/Background

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

·   41 ave. pax/day = 126 Halswell 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 a shelter in the location outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plan (refer to Attachments A). 

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 occurred from Wednesday 10 August 2016 to Wednesday 24 August 2016.  During this period, and after the consultation period finished the owners/occupiers of the properties adjacent to the Halswell Road bus stop returned the feedback form indicating approval, but on the grounds of certain requests which Council staff have acknowledged and have incorporated as part of the shelter proposal. 


 

6.   Option 1 - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation

Option Description

6.1       Install a bus passenger shelter at 126 Halswell Road, 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 as well as delivered by hand to each property listed below on 10 August 2016, requesting the owners or occupiers approval or objection to the bus shelter at the bus stop outside the property they own or occupy.  The consultation process closed on 24 August 2016.

·   Halswell Road shelter:  126/1 and 126/2 Halswell Road

6.5       As indicated in Section 5.6, the owners/occupiers of both properties have indicated their approval to have a bus passenger shelter installed, but on the grounds of certain requests which Council staff have acknowledged and have incorporated as part of the shelter proposal.

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 estimated cost to supply and install the one bus passenger shelter, plus additional bus stop upgrade work will cost about $9,000. 

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

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

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - approval by the Spreydon/Heathcote 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 shelter is installed at the location identified in section 3 of this report.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Not applicable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe - not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No advantages to this option.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Bus Shelter Plan for Approval: 126 Halswell Road

26

 

 

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

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

9.        Proposed Layover Bus Stop - 20 Athelstan Street

Reference:

16/976566

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 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to approve a new bus stop located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street (Cameron & Co, Barrington Law Office).  This bus stop will be used as a layover point for the bus line that terminates on the south side of Athelstan Street.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.  The bus stop presented in this report is linked to the recent installation of a bus stop located adjacent to 16 Athelstan Street (Barrington Health Centre).

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 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 Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board resolves to approve:

1.         20 Athelstan Street (Attachment A)

a.         That all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Athelstan Street commencing at a distance 127.8 metres east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 68.8 metres be revoked. 

b.         That the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Athelstan Street commencing at a point 127.8 metres east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

c.         That a marked bus stop be installed on the south side of Athelstan Street commencing at a distance 131.8 metres east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         That the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Athelstan Street commencing at a distance 145.8 metres east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

e.         That the stopping of vehicles is prohibited at all times on the south side of Athelstan Street commencing at a distance 175.8 metres east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 20.8 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: 10.4.5 Ensure user satisfaction with the appearance, safety and ease of use of transport interchange(s) and suburban hubs

4.1.2   Activity: Transport, Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Installation of a bus stop for layover purposes adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Installation of a bus stop for layover purposes adjacent to 22 to 24 Athelstan Street.

·     Option 3 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of the preferred option include:

·     Encourages pedestrians to cross the road to the rear of the bus, which is the recommend practice.

·     Provides pedestrians with an unrestricted clear line of sight, when determining if there is a sufficient gap in traffic to cross from the south side of Athelstan Street to the north side of Athelstan Street (Barrington Mall), in the vicinity of Everard Street.  This is an important pedestrian crossing location on Athelstan Street, as it links pedestrians directly to one of the pedestrian access points at Barrington Mall.  Due to the importance of the crossing point, a pedestrian refuge island has been provided to protect and allow pedestrians to safely cross the road.

·     The bus service finishes at the intended destination, providing bus passengers direct access to the Barrington commercial area.

·     Provides bus passengers with a short walking distance to transfer with other bus services that use the bus stop adjacent to 16 Athelstan Street.

·     The bus does not park outside residential dwellings, which is one of the most sensitive land-use categories to the impact caused by layover bus stops.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     A potential pinch point for cyclists is created between a bus that has stopped and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island.  The offset between the rear of the proposed layover bus stop and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island is approximately three metres.  To address this issue the length of the raised pedestrian island closest to the rear of the bus stop will be shortened.  This will increase the offset between the rear of the bus stop and the pedestrian refuge island to six metres, which provides sufficient space for a motorist to safely overtake a cyclist.

·     The bus stop is located to the right hand side of the driveway at 20 Athelstan Street, which will limit the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the driveway onto Athelstan Street.  The risk is somewhat mitigated by a new vehicle entrance/exit that has been constructed to 20 Athelstan Street, that fronts onto Everard Street.

·     If for any reason council staff determine that the driveway directionality at the Barrington Health Centre should be reversed to improve road user safety at the new bus stop adjacent to the Health Centre, the presence of a bus layover at adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street may also limit the clear line of sight potential for the driveway reversal.

·     The removal of three on-street parking spaces, that are time restricted to 60 minutes.  One additional unrestricted parking space is added to the section of road adjacent to 22 Athelstan Street.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       At present the layover (terminus) bus stop used by the 120 bus line (Burnside to Spreydon via Riccarton) is operating under temporary authorisation at a bus stop on Athelstan Street, adjacent to Everard Street.  The layover bus stop has been separated from the new bus stop located adjacent to 16 Athelstan Street (Barrington Health Centre) to allow the 120 bus line to wait until the specified time before commencing the return trip to Burnside in addition to allowing passengers to get off the bus.

5.2       A separate layover bus stop is required to allow the two bus stop spaces at the new bus stop adjacent to 16 Athelstan Street to function primarily as a bus stop for boarding and alighting of passengers for the three bus lines that operate via Athelstan Street (60, 120 (passenger boardings only) and the 145).  Allowing the bus to layover at this stop would disrupt the level of service and primary function for this stop and would likely result in too high a frequency of access to the Barrington Health Centre being obstructed.

5.3       The existing temporary layover bus stop is not a favourable location for pedestrian safety as it is located directly adjacent to a pedestrian crossing facility.  The existing layover bus stop fully restricts the clear line of sight for pedestrians crossing from the south side of the road to the north side of the road.  To address this issue, two layover bus stop locations are proposed.  Both locations are located near to the existing temporary bus stop location, but allow pedestrians to have a clear line of sight when determining when to cross the road.

5.4       Approximately 25 buses operating on the 120 bus line use the layover bus stop per weekday (Monday to Friday).  Monday to Friday is the most critical period of the week, as it is when the most amount of buses will be operating on the 120 bus line.  The average number of minutes that a bus will be stopped is dependent on the time of day.  During the weekday off-peak travel period (6am to 7am, 9am to 2pm, and 6pm to 10pm) the expected duration of time that a bus will layover at the bus stop is approximately 13 minutes.  During the weekday peak travel period (7am to 9am and 2pm to 6pm) the expected duration of time that a bus will layover at the bus stop increases to approximately 25 minutes.

Public Consultation

5.5       The properties listed below are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed layover bus stop.  Consultation documentation was mailed as well as delivered by hand to each property listed below, the consultation period commenced Monday 15 August 2016, and finished Tuesday 30 August 2016.

·   20*, 22 and 24 Athelstan Street (* = Cameron & Co, Barrington Law Office)

5.6       Feedback from the owners and/or occupiers of all properties listed above have been received.

5.7       The consultation documents were also provided to Environment Canterbury (ECan), as the organisation responsible for providing public transport services that will use the proposed facility.  Feedback has been received from ECan.

6.   Option 1 - Installation of a bus stop for layover purposes adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street (preferred option)

Option Description

6.1       As shown on Attachment A, the proposed bus stop to be used as a layover point for the bus line that terminates at Athelstan is located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street (Cameron & Co, Barrington Law Office). 

6.2       Of the two options proposed, the layover bus stop located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street provides pedestrians with the best clear line of sight, when determining if there is a sufficient gap in traffic to cross from the south side of Athelstan Street to the north side of Athelstan Street (Barrington Mall), in the vicinity of Everard Street.

6.3       A potential pinch point for cyclists is created between a bus that has stopped and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island.  The offset between the rear of the proposed layover bus stop and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island is approximately three metres.  To address this issue the length of the raised pedestrian island closest to the rear of the bus stop will be shortened.  This will increase the offset between the rear of the bus stop and the pedestrian refuge island to six metres, which provides sufficient space for a motorist to safely overtake a cyclist.

6.4       The bus stop is located to the right hand side of the driveway at 20 Athelstan Street, which will limit the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the driveway onto Athelstan Street.  The risk is somewhat mitigated by a new vehicle entrance/exit that has been constructed to 20 Athelstan Street, that fronts onto Everard Street.

6.5       If for any reason council staff determine that the driveway directionality at the Barrington Health Centre should be reversed to improve road user safety at the new bus stop adjacent to the Health Centre, the presence of a bus layover at adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street may also limit the clear line of sight potential for the driveway reversal.

6.6       Option 1 removes three on-street parking spaces that are time restricted to 60 minutes.  However, one additional unrestricted parking space is added to the section of road adjacent to 22 Athelstan Street. 

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 Environment Canterbury 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 Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.9       As indicated in Section 5, consultation information regarding the proposed bus stop layover options was mailed as well as delivered by hand to each properties located at 20*, 22 and 24 Athelstan Street (* = Cameron & Co, Barrington Law Office).  The consultation documents were also provided to Environment Canterbury, as the organisation responsible for providing public transport services that will use the proposed facility.

Views and Preferences – Owners/Occupiers 22 and 24 Athelstan Street

6.10    The owners/occupiers of 22 and 24 Athelstan Street have indicated that they do not want to have the layover bus stop adjacent to their residential properties.  The owner/occupiers have indicated they would prefer that the layover bus stop is located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street.  Based on the returned feedback from residents of 22 and 24 Athelstan Street, the reasons for their preference has been summarised in the following list:

·   The residents of 24 Athelstan Street have observed passengers also boarding the 120 bus line at the temporary stop.  For this reason the resident has indicated it makes more sense to put the layover stop closer to the bus stop located adjacent to the Heath Centre.  This feedback supports one of the advantages stated in Section 4.3.1.

·   The residents of 22 and 24 Athelstan have both indicated installing the layover bus stop adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street would encourage passengers who have alighted the bus to cross at the pedestrian crossing located to the rear of the stop, which is safer than in front of it.  This feedback supports one of the advantages stated in Section 4.3.1.

·   The residents of 22 Athelstan Street have indicated that pedestrian safety in general would be better if the layover bus stop was located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street.  The residents of 22 Athelstan Street have indicated the layover bus stop adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street, would block the pedestrian clear line of sight.  It is noted by staff that the layover bus stop adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street provides the best visibility for pedestrians out of the two options proposed, however staff confirm that the minimum clear line of sight for pedestrians is achievable if the layover bus stop were to be located adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street.

·   The residents of 22 and 24 Athelstan Street have both indicated the impact of the layover bus stop has greater consequences for them as they are residents of Athelstan Street.  This feedback supports one of the advantages stated in Section 4.3.1.

·   The residents of 24 Athelstan Street consider the layover bus stop adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street, which is operates as a business, as being more suitable, as the business is not active in the evenings, weekends, public holidays, etc. 

Views and Preferences – Owners/Occupiers 20 Athelstan Street

6.11    The owners/occupiers of 20 Athelstan Street (Cameron & Co, Barrington Law Office) have indicated in the feedback form that they support neither option proposed (Option 1 and 2 of this report).  The following list indicates the comments (text in italics) received by the representative of Cameron & Co.  Staff responses have been provided in conjunction to the listed comments.

·   If the bus is outside 20 Athelstan Street, then this will make turning out of the drive hazardous for the numerous clients who come in every day.  When the temporary bus stop was located in front of 20 Athelstan Street and a vehicle was exiting the client car park with a bus waiting, it was impossible to see if there was any oncoming traffic was coming from the right.  Drivers had to either “inch” forward out of the driveway or rely on the goodwill of a bus driver to give them a signal to go.

Response 1:  The bus stop is located to the right hand side of the driveway at 20 Athelstan Street, which will limit the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the driveway onto Athelstan Street.  As such this is an acknowledged issue.  The risk is somewhat mitigated by a new vehicle entrance/exit that has been constructed to 20 Athelstan Street, that fronts onto Everard Street.  Based on on-site observations by staff, the Everard Street driveway can hold two parked cars.

The objector is referring the negative impact to the operation of the driveway, based on the historic operation of the bus stop, when it was used by the 60 and 145 bus lines, in addition to the 120 bus line.  Whereas only one bus line, the 120, would operate from the proposed layover bus stop options.  As such there is an operational difference in bus vehicle demand between the proposed options and the historical operation of the temporary bus stop, which assists in mitigating the impact of the preferred option.

For the majority of the weekday (6am to 7am, 9am to 2pm, and 6pm to 10pm), when the most amount of buses will be in operation on the 120 bus line, the expected duration of time that a bus will layover at the bus stop is approximately 13 minutes.  This leaves the bus stop space vacant for the remainder of the time, allowing fully unrestricted clear lines of sight for drivers exiting the driveway at 20 Athelstan Street.  The period that is considered to be of most concern to the owner/occupier of 20 Athelstan Street, is a four hour period between 2pm and 6pm on a weekday.  During this period a bus may be stopped for up to 25 minutes.  If the driver’s line of sight is obscured during this period the driver will have to slowly nudge out in order to make a safe turning manoeuvre.  Similar vehicle manoeuvres would have occurred during the operational period of the temporary bus stop.  A crash study using the NZ Transport Agency, Crash Analysis System, was undertaken for the period when the temporary bus stop was operational, from about 2012 to mid-2016.  No crashes have been reported at the driveway of 20 Athelstan Street during this time period.  While it is not ideal to site a bus stop to the right hand side of a driveway, the activity does not necessarily lead to resulting crashes.  One reason for this is that the driver is aware of the hazard (i.e. a parked bus or other large vehicle) and is acting accordingly by ‘nudging’ out into the traffic lane, in order to complete the turning manoeuvre safely.

·   There were also issues for cars turning left into the car park off Athelstan Street, whilst a bus was parked there, as to whether or not there were any passengers alighting and walking in front of the driveway.

Response 2:  As per the staff ‘Response 1”, this is an acknowledged issue.  However as per ‘Response 1’ the objector is referring the negative impact to the operation of the driveway, based on the historic operation of the bus stop.  The primary use of the bus stop is for the vehicle to layover, in addition to allowing passengers to alight from the bus.  The passenger demand of the proposed option is far less than the passenger demand that occurred when all three bus lines used to operate from the temporary bus stop.  

Given the significance that Barrington Mall plays as a key destination, it is considered likely that passengers who alight the bus will likely walk to this destination centre.  In the preferred option passengers are more likely to walk to the rear of the bus, then cross at the pedestrian crossing point.  It is acknowledged that pedestrians irrespective of if they have just been a bus passenger or not will traverse the driveway in a westbound direction.  In such cases the drivers turning into the driveway have to be vigilant of such movements and turn with care.

The risk of pedestrians being obscured from a driver’s vision is also a risk if a large sports utility vehicle, van or truck were parked on-street, adjacent to the driveway.

·   The operators of Cameron & Co remain very concerned about cars entering and exiting the car park at our office when a bus is parked in front of 20 Athelstan Street.

Response 3:  Refer to the ‘Response 1’.

·   If a bus is outside 20 Athelstan Street, then the vibrations emitted from the bus cause nuisance to our work within Cameron & Co.  This is particularly distracting when we have meetings with our clients.

Response 4:  This is an acknowledged issue, however the impact is far greater on residential rather than business land-uses.

As indicated in Section 5.4, the layover activity requires the bus to be stopped on average for 13 minutes or more.  A driver of a public transport bus in Christchurch is contractually obliged to turn the engine off after 5 minutes of engine idling. The layover period allows the bus driver to have a toilet break, stretch their legs and get something to eat, this generally means that drivers turn the engine off once they get to the layover point.  As such the vibrations associated with a layover bus stop are minimal, associated with the stopping and starting of the bus to pull in and out of the bus stop.

·   We also have concerns about pedestrians crossing to the island from behind a bus which is parked in front of 20 Athelstan Street.  In our view this contributes to be a high risk situation for both foot pedestrians, which includes a significant proportion of older people and also young children with parents, along with persons on mobility scooters.

Response 5:  It is a recognised international best practice that at a mid-block pedestrian crossing, the bus stop be placed on the departure side of the crossing.  This is to encourage pedestrians to cross behind the bus where they can see approaching traffic and approaching motorists can see them.  This placement also enables the bus driver to pull away without endangering pedestrians.

·   Whilst having the layby in front of Everard Street isn’t ideal, in our view it is the least inconvenient option available, if the layover is required at all.

Response 6:  It is unfavourable to allow the bus stop layover to remain adjacent to Everard Street, as it fully restricts the clear line of sight for pedestrians when judging if there is a suitable gap in the on-coming traffic to cross the road.  The layover bus stop location adjacent to Everard Street does not adhere to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that prevents buses from stopping within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing.

A layover bus stop is necessary as it allows the 120 bus line to wait until the specified time before commencing the return trip to Burnside in addition to allowing passengers to get off the bus.  At the end (terminus) of every bus line, a layover point is a necessary tool in the management of public transport schedules.

Views and Preferences – Environment Canterbury

6.12    ECan have indicated that they would prefer the layover bus stop to be located adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street for the following reasons:

·   The layover location at 20 Athelstan St doesn’t block any driveways so this lessens the risk of conflict with cars.  Staff confirm that neither of the layover bus stop options would block a driveway.

·   The Barrington Law office at 20 Athelstan St is open business hours only which means bus layovers at weekends and evenings are unlikely to create any disturbance for workers. This contrasts with a layover being outside a residential dwelling which could be occupied at any time.  This feedback supports one of the advantages stated in Section 4.3.1.

·   This option provides clear sightlines for people using the pedestrian crossing.  This feedback supports one of the advantages stated in Section 4.3.1.  It is noted by staff the bus stop adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street does provide the best visibility for pedestrians out of the two options proposed, however staff confirm that the minimum clear line of sight for pedestrians is achievable if the layover bus stop were to be located adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost of this proposal is about $9,500.00

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

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

Legal Implications

6.17    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides 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 Hagley / Ferrymead Community Board.

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

6.19    Adheres to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that prevents buses from stopping within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing.

6.20    Adheres to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations 

6.21    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - The implementation is dependent on the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board approving the recommendations as described in Section 3.

6.23    Implementation timeframe – Implementation is expected to occur within two to four weeks of the community board approved the recommendations as described in Section 3.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides pedestrians with an unrestricted clear line of sight, when determining if there is a sufficient gap in traffic to cross from the south side of Athelstan Street to the north side of Athelstan Street (Barrington Mall), in the vicinity of Everard Street.  This is an important pedestrian crossing location on Athelstan Street, as it links pedestrians directly to one of the pedestrian access points at Barrington Mall.  Due to the importance of the crossing point, a pedestrian refuge island has been provided to protect and allow pedestrians to safely cross the road.

·   The bus service finishes at the intended destination, providing bus passengers direct access to the Barrington commercial area.

·   Provides bus passengers with a short walking distance to transfer with other bus services that use the bus stop adjacent to 16 Athelstan Street.

·   The bus does not park outside residential dwellings, which is one of the most sensitive land-use categories to the impact caused by layover bus stops.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A potential pinch point for cyclists is created between a bus that has stopped and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island.  The offset between the rear of the proposed layover bus stop and the nib of the pedestrian refuge island is approximately three metres.  To address this issue the length of the raised pedestrian island closest to the rear of the bus stop will be shortened.  This will increase the offset between the rear of the bus stop and the pedestrian refuge island to six metres, which provides sufficient space for a motorist to safely overtake a cyclist.

·   The bus stop is located to the right hand side of the driveway at 20 Athelstan Street, which will limit the clear line of sight for drivers exiting the driveway onto Athelstan Street.  The risk is somewhat mitigated by a new vehicle entrance/exit that has been constructed to 20 Athelstan Street, that fronts onto Everard Street.

·   If for any reason council staff determine that the driveway directionality at the Barrington Health Centre should be reversed to improve road user safety at the new bus stop adjacent to the Health Centre, the presence of a bus layover at adjacent to 20 Athelstan Street may also limit the clear line of sight potential for the driveway reversal.

·   The removal of three on-street parking spaces, that are time restricted to 60 minutes.  One additional unrestricted parking space is added to the section of road adjacent to 22 Athelstan Street.

7.   Option 2 - Installation of a bus stop for layover purposes adjacent to 22 to 24 Athelstan Street.

Option Description

7.1       As shown on Attachment B, the proposed bus stop to be used as a layover point for the bus line that terminates on the south side of Athelstan is located adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street.

7.2       Option 2 provides pedestrians with minimum clear line of sight distance when determining if there is a suitable gap in traffic to cross the road or not.

7.3       The layover bus stop is located to the left hand side of the driveway at 24 Athelstan Street, which is the preferred side of a driveway to install a bus stop, as it does not limit the clear line of sight for drivers to observe if a vehicle is approaching first from the right hand side of the driveway.  It has no impact on the driveway to 22 Athelstan Street, as the driveway to this property is located on Everard Street.

7.4       The layover bus stop would be located adjacent to residential dwellings, which is one of the most sensitive land-use categories to the impact caused by layover bus stops.

7.5       Option 2 removes three unrestricted on-street parking spaces located adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street.  Removal of the temporary layover bus stop does not result in any on-street parking spaces being installed.  This is to ensure the clear line of sight for pedestrians is not limited by any parked vehicle.

Significance

7.6       Refer to Section 6.7.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       Refer to Section 6.8.

Community Views and Preferences

7.8       Refer to Section 6.9 to 6.12.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of Implementation - The estimated cost of this proposal is about $2,000.00

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

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

Legal Implications

7.13    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides 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 Hagley / Ferrymead Community Board.

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

7.15    Adheres to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that prevents buses from stopping within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing.

7.16    Adheres to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations 

7.17    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.18    Implementation dependencies - The implementation is dependent on the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board approving the recommendations as described in Section 3.

7.19    Implementation timeframe – Implementation is expected to occur within two to four weeks of the community board approved the recommendations as described in Section 3.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provide pedestrians with the minimum clear line of sight distance when determining if there is a suitable gap in traffic to cross the road (Athelstan Street) or not.

·   The layover bus stop is located to the left hand side of the driveway at 24 Athelstan Street, which is the preferred side of a driveway to install a bus stop, as it does not limit the clear line of sight for drivers to observe if a vehicle is approaching first from the right hand side of the driveway.  It has no impact on the driveway to 22 Athelstan Street, as the driveway to this property is located on Everard Street.

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The layover bus stop would be located to residential dwellings, which is one of the most sensitive land-use categories to the impact caused by layover bus stops.

·   Removes three unrestricted on-street parking spaces located adjacent to 22 and 24 Athelstan Street.  Removal of the temporary layover bus stop does not result in any on-street parking spaces being installed.  This is to ensure the clear line of sight for pedestrians is not limited by any parked vehicle.

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing

Option Description

8.1       As shown on Attachment C, the layover bus stop continues to operate under temporary authorisation at a bus stop on Athelstan Street, adjacent to Everard Street.

8.2       This an unfavourable option as it does not adhere to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that prevents buses from stopping within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing.

Significance

8.3       Refer to Section 6.7.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       Refer to Section 6.8.

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Refer to Section 6.9 to 6.12.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – location in proximity to a pedestrian crossing.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – the layover bus stop is located within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – None.  This option is not favourable, Option 1 or 2 are the recommended options.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

8.9       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    Does not adhere to the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that prevents buses from stopping within six metres of the approach side of a pedestrian crossing. 

Risks and Mitigations  

8.11    Not applicable.

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not remove any on-street parking.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Fully restricts the clear line of sight for pedestrians when judging if there is a suitable gap in the on-coming traffic to cross the road.

·   It encourages passengers to cross in front of the bus which is not recommended practice, as it restricts the pedestrian’s clear line of sight, as per the previous disadvantage.

·   It encourages pedestrians to cross at locations other than the provided pedestrian crossing.  This can also lead to unsafe pedestrian crossing manoeuvres.

·   Due to the disadvantages listed above it has a significant impact on persons with mobility restrictions, people walking with buggies or other large items, the very young and old, who use the pedestrian crossing as it provides a safe place to wait (refuge island) when crossing the full width of the road.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Layover Bus Stop Plan for Approval: Option 1_20 Athelstan Street

39

b

Layover Bus Stop Plan: Option 2_22-24 Athelstan Street

40

c

Layover Bus Stop Plan: Option 3_Do Nothing_Layover Adjacent to Everard Street

41

 

 

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

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

10.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/970464

Contact:

Sol Smith

Sol.smith@ccc.govt.nz

941 6634

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to consider applications for 2016 Neighbourhood Week funding and to set in place a process should any late applications need to be considered.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Consider the applications as set out below:

 

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

1

Mara Apse

BBQ & children's games

80+

$120.00

2

Jacqui Benter-Lynch

BBQ

40

$80.00

3

Ruth Beyer

Halloween party & dinner

30

$60.00

4

Christine Burrows

BBQ

33

$66.00

5

Meg Christie

BBQ

40

$80.00

6

Valerie Clements

BBQ

32

$64.00

7

Robyn Coulter

BBQ

48

$80.00

8

Katrina Cowie

BBQ

40

$73.00

9

Jaimita de Jongh

BBQ

20 - 30

$60.00

10

Karen Erkkila

BBQ

38

$76.00

11

Melanie Foote

BBQ

30

$55.00

12

Rodney & Virginia Goodman

Afternoon tea

25

$40.00

13

Shona Holdgate

Afternoon tea

30 - 40

$80.00

14

Rory Jones

BBQ

40 - 60

$110.00

15

Sharon Keen

BBQ

40

$80.00

16

Sue Kingham

BBQ

70 - 80

$120.00

17

Jacinta Le Lievre

BBQ

30

$60.00

18

Karen Loveday

BBQ

30

$60.00

19

Keith Mills

BBQ

50 - 60

$110.00

20

Pamela O'Brien

BBQ

34

$68.00

21

Dennis Sloan

BBQ morning tea

25+

$50.00

22

Sarah Suckling

BBQ

40 - 50

$95.00

23

Kimala Temple

BBQ

40

$80.00

24

Julie Tobbell

Halloween BBQ

60

$80.00

25

Bev Wenmoth

BBQ

45

$88.00

26

Angela Whearty

BBQ

20 - 30

$60.00

27

Julie Young

BBQ

50

$95.00

 

 

 

 

 

28

Rick Bolch

Annual Christmas BBQ

50

$50.00

29

Lynette Coulbeck

BBQ

100

$100.00

30

David Drayton

Coffee & Cake evening

100

$100.00

31

Allan Hudson

BBQ and games

70 - 80

$110.00

32

Rachael Jamieson

Quiz Night

100

$100.00

33

Wendel Karati

Morning tea

50

$95.00

34

Donna McAleer

BBQ

30

$50.00

35

Greg Miller

Christmas BBQ & Carols

300

$140.00

36

Robyn Peterson

Morning tea

200+

$140.00

37

Suzanne Sauer

Pot luck tea

120 - 180

$140.00

38

Lynda Sawyers

Pokemon Go

30 - 40

$60.00

39

Julie Tobbell

Sydenham Cemetery Weed Out Event & BBQ

40

$70.00

40

Jillienne Toogood

BBQ & bric a brac sale

40

$80.00

 

end

 

 

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, 41 applications had been received.  Huntsbury Community Centre and Huntsbury Neighbourhood Support put in separate applications for events for Huntsbury residents and staff suggested they combine their proposed events; the application from HNS was subsequently withdrawn. 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.

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Neighbourhood Week Funding Matrix

46

b

Neighbourhood Week Guidelines

48

 

Signatories

Author

Sol Smith - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon/Heathcote

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

11.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Youth Achievement and Development Scheme Applications

Reference:

16/1042689

Contact:

Emma Pavey

Emma.pavey@ccc.govt.nz

941 5107

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board to consider applications from Maddison Hunter, Jonelle Arthur and Florence Nathan for the Board's 2016/17 Youth Achievement and Development Scheme.

1.2       There is currently $1,000 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board consider applications for funding from Florence Nathan, Maddison Hunter and Jonelle Arthur.

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 the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $125 from its 2016/17 Youth Achievement and Development Scheme to Maddison Hunter towards attendance at the 2016 South Island Tournament in football in Christchurch from the 2nd October to the 4th October 2016.

2.         Approves a grant of $250 from its 2016/17 Youth Achievement and Development Scheme to Jonelle Arthur towards attendance at the New Zealand Football South Island National Talent Centre in Oamaru from the 26th September to the 29th September.

3.         Approves a grant of $250 from its 2016/17 Youth Achievement and Development Scheme to Florence Nathan towards attendance at the Collier Trophy in Hamilton from the 3rd October to the 8th October 2016 .

 

 

4.   Maddison Hunter

4.1       Maddison Hunter is 14 years old and a year 9 student at Cashmere High School.  Maddison lives in Somerfield.

4.2       Maddison has been selected to represent Canterbury 14th Grade Girls Team in the forthcoming 2016 South Island Tournament in football (soccer).

4.3       The South Island Tournament is taking place from the 2nd October to the 4th October 2016 at Tulett Park, Christchurch.  The event has been organised by Mainland Football who have subsidised the cost for participants.  There will be 21 teams taking part in the tournament and participants are expected to contribute towards clothing, entry fees, team photographs and ribbons.

4.4       Maddison has been playing football since she was five years of age and is enrolled in a coaching programme to help develop other young players in the community.  Being selected to represent Canterbury offers Maddison the opportunity to develop her skills further, meet new people and share her skills and knowledge of the game.

4.5       Maddison enjoys playing all sports but reports football as her passion.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Maddison Hunter:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Canterbury Jacket, Socks, Entry Fees, Team Photograph and Ribbons

$240

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$240

 

1.1.  This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

5.   Jonelle Arthur

5.1       Jonelle Arthur is 14 years old and a year 9 student at Cashmere High School.  Jonelle lives in Spreydon.

5.2       Jonelle has been selected to attend the New Zealand Football South Island National Talent Centre in Oamaru from the 26th September to the 29th September. 

5.3       Jonelle has been involved in football (soccer) since she was five years old and plays for Cashmere Technical.  Jonelle was first selected to represent Canterbury when she was 10 years old and has represented Canterbury every year since.  Jonelle also plays in Cashmere High School's football team and has played in the Premier Development League for ladies where dispensation was given due to Jonelle's age.  Jonelle's ultimate goal is to represent New Zealand ladies.

5.4       Attending the National Talent Centre will offer Jonelle an individual programme to further develop her skills, will assess her and prepare her to cope with the modern game and will provide training sessions along with an extended training programme to follow throughout the year.  Jonelle will receive regular feedback on her progress.

5.5       Jonelle works one day a week in a local bridal shop as this is all she can fit in around her training schedule.  Jonelle does have future plans to coach others in the community when she has more free time to do so.  Jonelle enjoys school and her favourite subjects are Spanish, Science and Maths.

5.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Jonelle Arthur:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Accommodation, Food, Training

$520

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$520

 

1.2.  This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

6.   Florence Nathan

6.1       Florence is 13 years old and is a student at Christchurch South Intermediate.  Florence lives in Somerfield.

6.2       Florence has been selected to represent Canterbury for the U13 Hockey A Team, to participate in the Collier Trophy from the 3rd October to the 8th October 2016 in Hamilton.  The build up for the tournament has been taking place from July through to September where games have been played all over the South Island.

6.3       Florence has been playing hockey for the past eight years and plays for Southern United Hockey Club.  In 2015 Florence was awarded Southern United's "Most Outstanding Junior Girl" award.  Florence was part of the U13 Hockey Team last year who won the Collier Trophy.  The team is determined to defend their trophy this year.

6.4       Florence is a very keen sportsperson and plays touch rugby, korfball, water polo, tennis and basketball.  She also sings in the school choir and is a vocalist in a rock band who will be going to Bandquest this year.  

6.5       Florence has been fundraising towards the costs of the trip.

6.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Florence Nathan:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Entry Fees, Accommodation, Travel, Food

$700

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$700

 

6.7       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

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

Emma Pavey - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon/Heathcote

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

12.    Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

16/1067758

Contact:

Faye Collins

Faye.collins@ccc.govt.nz

941 5108

 

 

1.   Board and Community Activities

1.1       Hoon Hay Hoops, Thursday 29 September 2016, 12:00-5:30pm

1.2       Rowley Resource Centre 25th Anniversary celebration, Friday 30 September 2016 10am-1pm RSVP required.

2.   Funding Update

2.1       A funding update is attached.

3.   Community Governance Team Updates

Local staff will provide verbal updates on ward projects and activities.

 

4.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Funding Update

54

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Emma Pavey - Community Recreation Advisor

Jay Sepie - Community Development Advisor

Sol Smith - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon/Heathcote

  


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

PDF Creator

 


Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board

16 September 2016

 

 

13.  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.

 

 

 

14.  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.