Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 14 September 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Aaron Keown

Jo Byrne

Pauline Cotter

Ali Jones

Emma Norrish

Barbara Watson

 

 

7 September 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@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

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

 

 

Role of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board

 

Chair

Mike Davidson

Membership

Aaron Keown (Deputy Chair), Jo Byrne, Emma Norrish, Barbara Watson, Pauline Cotter, Ali Jones

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies is uneven.

Meeting Cycle

Twice monthly on the first and third Wednesdays of the month.

 

The role of the community board is to:

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board Objectives

For the 2013-2016 Triennium

 

These objectives have been agreed to by the Shirley/Papanui Community Board. They are intended to guide decision-making and provide a basis for the Board's advocacy work now and in the future. These objectives will be achieved through partnerships with the community, community organisations, local businesses, government agencies and the Christchurch City Council.

 

§  Raise Board profile and strengthen communication

§  Work co-operatively with other wards and community boards

 

§  Empowering, enabling, supporting local communities

§  Giving the community its own voice and sense of involvement

 

§  Give the community an understanding of what is happening in the wards

 

§  Contribute to a sustainable, healthy city.

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 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   

STAFF REPORTS

C       6.       Abberley Park Playground Renewal............................................................................ 11

C       7.       Proposed Road Names - Highsted Subdivision - Stage 5 and 6................................. 27

C       8.       Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive Proposed No Stopping.................................. 31

C       9.       Victoria Street An Accessible City Streetscape Improvements and Transport Changes......................................................................................................................................... 39

C       10.     Cranford/Westminster Street Intersection Improvements and proposed no stopping. ......................................................................................................................................... 61

C       11.     Shirley/Papanui Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications ..................... 63

B       12.     Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update...................................................... 69

B       13.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 71

B       14.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 71

Valedictories

 

 


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

1.   Apologies

An apology for absence was received from Aaron Keown.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting both Open and Closed held on Wednesday, 31 August 2016 be confirmed. Refer to page 5 of this agenda for the Open Minutes. The Closed Minutes have been separately circulated.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Meg Glading

Meg Glading will attend to report back to the Board on her attendance at the Junior

White Sox U19 Team, Hawaiian Invitational Softball Championships held in Hawaii in July 2016.

 

4.2

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Brittany Terrey

Brittany Terrey will attend to report back to the Board on her attendance at the Softball Friendship Games held in Sydney from 1 to 9 July 2016

 

4.3

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – St Thomas Canterbury College

Representatives of the St Thomas Canterbury College Rugby League team will report back to the Board on their participation in the New Zealand Secondary School Rugby League National Tournament held in Papakura, Auckland in August 2016.

 

4.4

Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Goiteom Gebremedihin

Goiteom Gebremedihin will attend to report back to the Board on his participation in the Australian Secondary Schools’ Cross Country Championships held in August 2016

 

4.5

Abberley Park – Bronwyn Hayward

Ms Bronwyn Hayward will attend to speak to the Board regarding Abberley Park.

 

4.6

Glasnevin Drive – Les Bearman

Mr Les Bearman will attend to speak to the Board regarding the proposed No Stopping Restrictions on Glasnevin Drive.

 

4.7

Lake Rotokohatu Project – Trevor Isitt

Mr Trevor Isitt, North Canterbury Fish and Game Councillor, will attend to update the Board on the Lake Rotokohatu Project.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

 

Shirley/Papanui Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 31 August 2016

Time:                                    4.00pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Papanui Service Centre,
Corner Langdons Road and Restell Street, Papanui

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Mike Davidson

Jo Byrne

Pauline Cotter

Ali Jones

Emma Norrish

Barbara Watson

 

 

31 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Judith Pascoe

Community Board Advisor

941 5414

judith.pascoe@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 SPCB/2016/00128

That the apology for absence from Aaron Keown be accepted.

That the apology for late arrival from Emma Norrish be accepted.

 

Member Davidson/Member Cotter                                                                                                                    Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

Member Norrish entered the meeting at 04:08 pm.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00129

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Shirley/Papanui Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 be confirmed.

Member Byrne/Member Jones                                                                                                                            Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Jackson Watt

             Jackson Watt will attend to report back to the Board on his attendance at the Junior World Men’s Softball Championships held in Michigan, USA in July 2016

Part B

Jackson Watt did not attend.

 

 

 

4.2       Positive Youth Development Scheme Report – Jarvis Hansen

             Jarvis Hansen attended to report back to the Board on his attendance at the Junior World Athletic Championships held in Poland in July 2016.

Part B

The Chairperson thanked Jarvis Hansen for his report.

 

4.3     Late Deputation regarding Worthington Contracting Ltd

Ann Kennedy, Pieter Valentine and Laura McIntosh, residents living adjacent to the Worthington Contracting Ltd work site at 40 Guild Street spoke to the Board regarding their concerns over the perceived air, water and noise pollution emanating from the Worthington Contracting work site.

Part B

The Chairperson thanked Ann Kennedy, Pieter Valentine and Laura McIntosh for their deputation (refer Item 7 of these minutes).

 

 

7.   Worthington Contracting Ltd Site at 40 Guild Street

 

Board Comment

The Board discussed the information provided by the Deputation members (refer Item 4.3 of these minutes) Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury (Ecan) staff.

The Board expressed its concerns over the situation that residents living adjacent to the Worthington’s site at Guild Street were experiencing and the difficulties in substantiating the various instances of pollution.

Christchurch City Council Compliance Unit staff advised the Board that they would be increasing the monitoring of this site and suggested the Board request that a meeting be held with the concerned parties to discuss the issues of air, water, noise and vibration pollution as identified by the community.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Worthington Contracting Ltd memo.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00130

Part C

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board resolved to:

1.         Request that a community meeting be organised between appropriate Christchurch City Council, Environment Canterbury and Canterbury District Health Board staff plus residents from the immediate area surrounding the Worthington Contracting Ltd worksite at 40 Guild Street and Worthington Contracting Ltd Management within the next four weeks to discuss ongoing concerns with operations on this site.

2.         Request that the Christchurch City Council staff increase the level of monitoring with reference to Standard 6/18 (amenity) of the City Plan.

3.         Contact Environment Canterbury and request that any complaints about dust and air pollution and water pollution in the St Albans Stream relating to activities on the Worthington’s Guild Street site be treated as a priority.

Member Jones/Member Watson                                                                                                                        Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

 

Member Byrne left the meeting at 5:03 pm.

6.   Shirley/Papanui Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee Minutes - 10 August 2016

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00131

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board receives the Minutes from the Shirley/Papanui Small Grants Fund Assessment Committee meeting held 10 August 2016.

 

Member Cotter/Member Jones                                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

8.   Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update

 

Member Byrne returned to the meeting at 5:05 pm.

 

8.1     Pedestrian Refuge Main North Road and Traffic Movements Loftus Road

The Notice of Motion approved by the Board was presented at the 14 July Council Meeting. The Council accepted the Notice of Motion and directed this to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for their meeting on 1 September. Further information will come to the Board after that date.

Part B

             The Shirley/Papanui Community Board received the information.

 

8.2     Shirley Community Centre Rebuild

At their meeting of 31 August 2016 the Shirley/Papanui Community Board considered a process for the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre.

The Council has allocated funding of $2.57 million to cover the capital costs of the rebuild of the Shirley Community Centre. This project is in Tranche 1 of the Community Facilities Rebuild Programme.

The Board wishes to proceed with this project and suggests that a process similar to that put in place by the Council for the rebuild of the St Albans Community Centre be followed.

Accordingly the Board requests that delegated authority for decision-making around the Shirley Community Centre project be given by the Council, including the delegation of authority to make decisions from the recommendations of the Working Party and from staff for the siting, design and rebuild process and future management of the facility.

The Board agreed at their meeting that:

·      Terms of Reference, similar to those developed for the St Albans Community Centre rebuild process will be developed for this project and will be considered for approval by the Papanui/Innes Community Board at the start of the next electoral term.

·      The formation of any Working Party and the arrangements for any first meeting will also be delayed until the start of the next electoral term.

·      The decision as to the site of the new Shirley Community Centre will also be made by the Papanui/Innes Community Board in the next electoral term

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00132

Part A

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board recommends to the Council:

1.         That the Council delegates the necessary authority to the Shirley/Papanui Community Board (to be the Papanui/Innes Community Board in the next term) for decisions regarding the rebuild and future management of the Shirley Community Centre at either 10 Shirley Road or any other selected site.

Member Watson/Member Cotter                                                                                                                       Carried

 

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00133

Part B

The Shirley/Papanui Community Board received the report.

Member Jones/Member Byrne                                                                                                                            Carried

 

9.   Elected Member Information Exchange

Part B

·    The Board discussed the press article regarding the Mosquito device installed at the entrance to the Papanui Library and requested further information from Library staff.

·    Timelines for the rebuild of the St Albans Community Centre were discussed and the Board asked that Council staff regularly update the Board and the St Albans Residents’ Association (SARA), who are currently managing the temporary facility, on the plans and timelines for the rebuild project and for the relocation of current activities from the site to enable the rebuild to proceed.

10. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

Member Cotter left the meeting at 05:41 pm.

Member Cotter returned to the meeting at 05:43 pm.

 

11  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved SPCB/2016/00134

Part C

That at 05:42 pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 5 to 33 of the Public Excluded agenda be adopted.

Member Davidson/Member Byrne                                                                                                                       Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 05:56pm.

   

Meeting concluded at 06:43 pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016.

 

Mike Davidson

Chairperson

   


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

6.        Abberley Park Playground Renewal

Reference:

16/957259

Contact:

Steven Gray

Steven.gray@ccc.govt.nz

9418256

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve Abberley Park Playground Renewal Concept landscape Plan, LP365302 for the replacement of the playground equipment and safety surfacing at Abberley Park.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following public consultation in July 2016 and in response to the submissions received.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Approve the concept landscape plan for the redevelopment of the playground at Abberley Park, concept plan LP365302.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Garden and Heritage Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.2.10 Garden and Heritage Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean, tidy, safe and functional. Trees, Clocks, fountains and statues are maintained to specifications

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Playground Renewal Landscape Plan - Post Consultation (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Playground Renewal Landscape Plan – Pre Consultation

·     Option 3 – Do minimal -  Safety surface and Equipment Removals

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of non-compliant equipment thereby removing safety risks to playground users

·     Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Play equipment will be increased from three play elements to seven

·     Provision of safety surfacing in accordance with the New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Provision of a new accessible path connecting to the playground space

·     Uses less open space

·     Change of safety surface matting being visually less intrusive

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Does not meet all of the submission requests through the consultation. Discussed in section 6.9 Community Views and Preferences

·     Closure of the playground space during the construction period

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Abberley Park is located on Abberley Crescent in St Albans and is classified as a Garden and Heritage Park. It was gifted to the public in the mid-20th century.

5.2       There are currently two playgrounds within the park, one alongside the paddling pool and one by the large open lawn on the eastern side of the park. This project is to upgrade the play equipment by the lawn only.

5.3       The Parks Unit work on a 25 year renewal programme for play equipment to keep up with safety standards and compliance with the New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2004. This ensures playgrounds are safe and maintains an acceptable level of service.

5.4       Capital funding was approved in the LTP with construction programmed for 2016/17 financial year.

5.5       There are a number of other playground sites close by that offer a range of play activities, cater for a range of ages groups and level of abilities. These sites include:

·   English Park / St Albans school and Malvern Park – approx. 800m, and

·   St Albans Park – approx.1.2km away.

Existing Playground Equipment

5.6       The existing play equipment at Abberley Park is non-compliant under the current Playground Standards. The playground equipment includes the following items:

5.6.1   Swings - The existing swing set is showing signs of rusting around the leg supports and bolts, rusting on sections of exposed steel pipes and around the base of the leg supports.

5.6.2   Slide One – There is a free standing slide which is 1500mm high. This slide does not comply in the following areas:

·   The slide chute is too shallow which could lead to a child falling off the slide

·   The side safety rails on the top landing have horizontal rails, not vertical rails and the gaps are incorrect allowing movement through the safety barrier

·   The landing height at the chute end is too low

·   These items could be adjusted however the cost to replace the slide chute, remove and raise the slide higher, and remove and replace the safety rails would make it un-economical and the slide would still have a frame that is at the end of its life

5.6.3   Slide Two – The slide chute is attached to a wooden frame with timber half round logs providing an access ramp up to the slide. The slide chute sits on top of half round logs on the opposite side.

·   The half round logs do not have a consistent edge therefore creating finger and clothing (toggle) entrapment areas

·   There is no safety barrier either side of the ramps or along the top platform leaving an open fall area

·   The slide chute is too shallow which could lead toward a child falling off the slide

·   There is entrapment space between the chute and the timber half round logs

·   These non-compliant items could be replaced but would involve removing all of the half round logs and replacing with lathed logs providing consistent gaps at the required space. The slide chute would need to be replaced and safety barriers installed along the top platform and part way down the ramp sides

6.   Option 1 – Playground Renewal Landscape Plan - Post Consultation (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To install new playground equipment as shown in the amended concept landscape plan LP365302- post consultation, attachment A, and to relocate one of the existing see-saws. The proposed play equipment will consist of the following items:

6.1.1   Swings – through the consultation submission requested two strap seats so the plan has been amended to include a two and a half bay swing set with a basket swing, two strap seats and an infant seat.

6.1.2   Carousal – This will be an inclusive and accessible Carousal available for all users as shown on the consultation plan.

6.1.3   Rocking Horse – This allows for multiple use and reflects the heritage value of Garden and Heritage Parks.

6.1.4   Maypole (Monkey Pole) – Also allows for multiple use and the heritage values.

6.1.5   Talk Tubes – Is an inclusive play element for all park users.

6.1.6   Slide – A new slide is proposed which will be 1800mm high. This will allow children to challenge themselves as their play ability increases and provides for a slightly older age range. Younger children are still able to use this item but may require caregiver assistance.

6.1.7   See-Saws – The see-saws have been reassessed and although there are non-compliant issues one will be reinstated at a low cost. The see-saw will be painted, relocated and will have new cushion stops placed under the seats to prevent the see-saw hitting the ground.

6.2       Overall the play equipment will be increase from two slides and swings to seven play elements.

6.3       Install new safety surface matting under all play equipment.

6.3.1   The proposed matting will have crash pad safety mats in the required fall zones.

6.3.2   The finished surface will be Astroturf. This has been selected to address the concerns in some submission about loss of open space. The Astroturf visually will provide a lower impact on the open space than the rubber matting that was first proposed.

6.3.3   The Astroturf will be finished and level with the existing grass surface to provide easy access for all users and caregivers. A small concrete strip is required to attach and secure the Astroturf to.

6.3.4   Through the submissions a suggestion of hop scotch into the safety surface was put forward and will be considered in the detail design and included if possible.

6.4       The playground footprint has been amended following concerns around loss of open space:

6.4.1   The existing open space by the playground is approximately 1473m2. With the consultation plan proposed layout this space was reduced to approximately 1349m2 therefore reducing the open lawn area by approximately 124m2.

6.4.2   With the amended plan the playground layout is now more linear along the south boundary which keeps a bigger open space to the north of the playground.

6.4.3   The amended plan has moved some play equipment into the space between the large tree and the south boundary.  However, this space has limited options due to restrictions with structures setback and keeping built structures away from tree drip lines so as not to cause damage to the feeding root systems.

6.4.4   With the amended layout, draft amendment shown below, the difference can clearly be seen with the first proposal (light brown) and the amended plan (white). Final plan attached as Attachments A and B with attachment B showing a wide overview of the playground space.

6.5       The proposed path has been realigned to provide better access to the equipment and reduces the effects on loss of open space while still providing connections to the public toilets. The crusher dust surface is an accessible surface suitable for wheelchair use.

6.6       The low planting has been removed due to concerns around potential damage to plants, rubbish build up in the proposed gardens, and dog’s toileting on the plants which are close to the play equipment.

Significance

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

6.8       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    Community consultation on the Abberley Park Playground Renewal was undertaken from Friday 22 July to Monday 15 August 2016. The deadline was extended from Monday 8 August 2016 during consultation to accommodate an error in the plan which was sent incorrectly to some stakeholders.

6.11    A total of 1300 leaflets were hand delivered to properties between Papanui Road, St Albans Street, Trafalgar Street/Colombo Street and Holly Road. The leaflet was also sent to 106 key stakeholders and 518 absentee owners.

6.12    The project team met with a St Albans Residents Association (SARA) representative who assisted with further distribution of leaflets to the local area including displaying copies in SARA’s noticeboards.

6.13    A temporary noticeboard was also installed adjacent to the play equipment on the east lawn to display the leaflet.

6.14    During the course of the engagement, the Council received 98 submissions. 67 respondents were in support of the proposed renewal, 20 respondents did not support the proposal and 11 respondents did not state their preference.

6.15    Feedback received supported the following elements of the proposal:

·    Overall support for the upgrade – with comments such as “looks like fun – well done”, “looks an exciting design”, “a good, sensible playground” and “it looks safe, inviting and well laid out”

·    Accessibility of the playground including the pathway, unrestricted border, wheelchair friendly rubber matting and equipment including the carousel, basket swing and talk tubes

·    Inclusion of a picnic table adjacent to play equipment

·    Introduction of new equipment including the carousel, rocking horse and monkey pole

6.16    During the consultation, the following concerns and suggestions were raised:

·    Amount of space the playground footprint will take away from the east lawn and suggestions for a change in equipment layout/playground location

·    Retain the see-saws as part of the renewal

·    Keep two strap swings on the swing set rather than the one proposed

·    Retain the log slide as part of the renewal

·    Include more climbing equipment in the design

·    Disagreement with the colours, material and type of equipment because it doesn’t fit with the heritage aspect of the park

·    Remove the low level planting border due to maintenance upkeep and creation of a disconnect from the wider park

·    Questions regarding the material for the proposed pathway and suitability for wheelchairs/pushchairs

·    Shade for the play equipment and picnic table proposed

·    Concern about the type of seating proposed (picnic table) and whether a wheelchair accessible picnic table could be installed

·    Equipment that could be removed to create more lawn space: carousel, monkey pole, rocking horse

·    More equipment for toddler play

·    Equipment better suited to older children should be included

·    Whether in-ground trampolines and balance beams could be included in the playground design

6.17    The following feedback received as part of the consultation was outside the scope of the playground renewal and were responded to accordingly:

·   Requests for additional park facilities including BBQ’s, bike parks, lighting and park seating

Response: Your suggestion has been passed onto the Parks Unit as it currently sits outside the budget and scope for this project

·   General park maintenance concerns including lack of rubbish bins, paths in need of repair and requests to replant the scented border in the park

Response: Your suggestion has been passed onto the Parks Unit as it currently sits outside the budget and scope for this project

·   Concerns around the future of the paddling pool at Abberley Park following rumours that it would not be reopening

Response: The paddling pool at Abberley Park is not being closed. It is getting a refurbished pool tank with a fish motif painted on the bottom. Information provided by the Recreation and Sports Unit.

·   More restrictions on dogs using Abberley Park i.e. leashed only

Response: The new Dog Control Policy 2016 (which comes into effect on 1 September 2016) states that dogs must be leashed/under effective control at Abberley Park. Dogs must be on a leash in the park, however, are allowed off-leash/under effective control on the flat eastern lawn area only. Dogs are prohibited within one metre of the playground equipment. Under the 2008 policy, the whole of Abberley Park was a leashed area. Following consultation earlier this year, it was changed to allow an area for dogs to exercise off-leash. The existing dog control sign will be moved to a more visible location. Information provided by the Strategic Policy Unit.

6.18    As a result of consultation, the following changes have been made to the final plan for approval:

·    Change in layout to reduce impact on east lawn area including the path connection

·    One see-saw retained and upgraded

·    Increased number of strap swings from one to two adding an extra half bay

·    Removal of low level border plating

·    Change in surface material to reduce visual dominance of the matting

·    Inclusion of a Hop Scotch court

6.19    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

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

6.20.1 Children’s Policy 1998

6.20.2 Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

6.20.3 Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Financial Implications

6.21    Cost of implementation - The current cost estimates to implement this work indicate this will be managed within the existing Capital budget.

6.22    Maintenance / ongoing costs - The playground is currently under a maintenance contract and schedule which undertakes inspections of the equipment for compliance and a condition assessment. These inspections are undertaken regardless of the age of the equipment. However, with the equipment’s current condition the maintenance cost will be higher as opposed to new equipment and safety surface which is designed and built to meet the compliance conditions. No additional operational costs are expected from this renewal project.

6.23    Funding source – Projects listed in the current LTP:

6.23.1 Abberley Park Playground Renewal (17737)

6.23.2 Garden and Heritage Parks Play and Recreational Facilities Renewal (25030)

Legal Implications

6.24    The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS5828:2004 are not a compulsory Standard. However, the Standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for uses and administrates.

6.25    Abberley Park is listed as a Heritage site item number 31 in the District Plan. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 provides protection for archaeological sites and requires an application for a general archaeological authority.

6.25.1 Approval was granted in July 2016.

6.26    No building consents are required as playgrounds are exempt.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.27    Risk of increase in costs of play equipment caused through time delay from estimates at the concept plan stage until gaining approval and placing orders. 

6.27.1 Treatment: Confirming the estimate and obtaining a final quote. If cost is higher than expected, other suppliers will be researched for better pricing.

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

Implementation

6.28    Implementation dependencies - Gaining Community Board approval to proceed to construction.

6.29    Implementation timeframe:

·   Board approval  -14 September 2016

·   Detail design, obtaining consents (where required) and tendering - September to January 2017

·   Construction completed - May 2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.30    The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of non-compliant equipment thereby removing safety risks to playground users

·     Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Play equipment will be increase from three play elements to seven

·     Provision of safety surfacing in accordance with the New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Provision of a new accessible path connecting to the playground space

·     Uses less open space

·     Change of safety surface matting being visually less intrusive

6.31    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Does not meet all of the submission requests through the consultation. Discussed in section 6.9 Community Views and Preferences.

·     Closure of the playground space during the construction period.

7.   Option 2 – Playground Renewal Landscape Plan – Pre Consultation

Option Description

7.1       To install new playground equipment as shown in the consultation concept plan LP365301, attachment C. The play equipment will consist of the following items:

7.1.1   Swings – included a two bay swing set with a basket swing, one strap seats and an infant seat.

7.1.2   Carousal – This will be an inclusive and accessible Carousal available for all users as shown on the consultation plan.

7.1.3   Rocking Horse – This allows for multiple use and reflects the heritage value of Garden and Heritage Parks.

7.1.4   Maypole (Monkey Pole) – Also allows for multiple use and the heritage values.

7.1.5   Talk Tubes – Is an inclusive play element for all park users.

7.1.6   Slide – A new slide is proposed which will be 1800mm high. This will allow children to challenge themselves as their play ability increases and provides for a slightly older age range. Younger children are still able to use this item but may require caregiver assistance.

7.2       Install new safety surface matting under all play equipment.

7.2.1   The proposed matting will have crash pad safety mats in the required fall zones.

7.2.2   The finished surface will be rubber matting designed to meet the NZ Playground Standards.

7.2.3   The safety mats will be finished and level with the existing grass surface to provide easy access for all users and caregivers. Edge treatment is required to attached and secure the mats to.

7.3       The proposed path will providing connections to the public toilets. The crusher dust surface is an accessible surface suitable to wheelchair use.

7.4       Provide low planting around the south edge to the playground space to enhance and soften the space.

Significance

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

7.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       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

7.8       Refer to section 6.10 to 6.19 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.9.1   Children’s Policy 1998

7.9.2   Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

7.9.3   Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Financial Implications

7.10    Cost of implementation - The current cost estimates to implement this work indicate this will be managed within the existing Capital budget. Option two provides a cheaper option as the safety matting surface is reduced without the relocated see-saws and the cost to relocate the see-saws and repaint them.

7.11    Maintenance / ongoing costs - The playground is currently under a maintenance contract and schedule which undertakes inspections of the equipment for compliance and a condition assessment. With the current condition of the equipment and the non-compliance the maintenance cost will be higher as opposed to new equipment and safety surface which is designed and built to meet the compliance conditions. No additional operational costs are expected from this renewal project.

7.12    Funding source – LTP projects:

7.12.1 Abberley Park Playground Renewal (17737)

7.12.2 Garden and Heritage Parks Play and Recreational Facilities Renewal (25030)

Legal Implications

7.13    Refer to 6.14 to 6.16

Risks and Mitigations    

7.14    Refer to 6.17

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies – Refer to 6.18

7.16    Implementation timeframe – Refer to 6.19

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of non-compliant equipment thereby removing safety risks to playground users

·     Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Play equipment will be increased from three play elements to six

·     Provision of safety surfacing in accordance with the New Zealand Playground Standards

·     Provision of a new accessible path connecting to the playground space

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Closure of the playground space during the construction period

·     Not taking in the community’s views on the proposed development

8.   Option 3 – Do minimal -  Safety surface and Equipment Removals

Option Description

8.1       This option was not discussed with the community as there is funding to undertake renewal of the playground equipment. However, there is still an option to do minimal to the existing playground space.

8.2       Replacing the safety surface with new matting or Astroturf.

·   The current safety surface is in poor condition and regardless of any play equipment changes the replacement of this surface needs to be undertaken to reduce risk of injures

8.3       The slides could be retained for a short period of time (length of time unknown) as these were installed under an older version of the Playground Standards.

8.3.1   Retaining these slide creates other issues as noted below.

·   As these were installed under the old Standards they cannot be relocated without being brought up to the new Standards

·   The issues of bringing them up to Standard is noted in section 5.6 which covers entrapments, slide chute non-compliances, fall heights, and safety barriers

·   Option One proposed layout would need to change to allow for the slides and this would increase the amount of open space required for the playground space.

8.4       The existing swing set is showing signs of rusting around the leg supports and bolts, rusting on sections of exposed steel pipes and around the base of the leg supports. These swings need to be removed to reduce safety risk.

Significance

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

8.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.8       The community was not consulted on this option as there is capital funding to undertake renewals of this playground space.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.9.1   Inconsistency – Not meeting Levels of Service.

8.9.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not complying with the New Zealand Playground Standards.

Financial Implications

8.10    Cost of Implementation – Work would be covered by the current capital funding.

8.11    Maintenance / ongoing costs – This option would reduce costs on safety surface maintenance works but may increase operational work on the play equipment with fixing broken items.

8.12    Funding source - LTP project: Abberley Park Playground Renewal (17737).

Legal Implications

8.13    The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS5828:2004 are not a compulsory Standard. However, the Standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for uses and administrates.

8.14    Abberley Park is listed as a Heritage site item number 31 in the District Plan. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 provides protection for archaeological sites and requires an application for a general archaeological authority.

8.15    Approval was granted in July 2016.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.16    Not removing or replacing equipment runs a risk of injury to users

8.17    Risk of injury caused by faulty play equipment.  This will result in potentially an enquiry (depending on the extent of the injury or death) looking at safety records and audits undertaken, condition assessment reporting and the Council’s response to mitigate these issues.

8.17.1 Treatment: undertake a renewal of the exiting playground equipment.

8.17.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium / high.

Implementation

8.18    Implementation dependencies – Gaining Community Board approval to proceed to construction.

8.19    Implementation timeframe:

·   Board approval - 14 September 2016

·   Replacement of safety surfacing - October 2016

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Replacement of safety surface to meet the current Standards

·   Removal of damaged and non-compliant playground equipment, therefore removing risk of injury

8.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Retaining some non-compliant playground equipment

·   Medium to high risk of injury to users

·   Would need to re-consult in the near future and redevelop another concept plan costing more money to undertake this process again

·   Delays in providing safe playground space and meeting Levels of Service

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Abberley Park Playground Renewal Landscape Plan - Post Consutation Option 1

24

b

Abberley Park Playground Renewal Landscape Plan Option 1 - wide view

25

c

Abberley Park Playground Renewal Plan Pre Consultation Plan - Option 2

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

Authors

Steven Gray - Project Manager

Katie Chapman - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

7         Proposed Road Names - Highsted Subdivision - Stage 5 and 6

Reference:

16/1002488

Contact:

Bob Pritchard

bob.pritchard@ccc.govt.nz

941 6844

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the proposed road and right of way names.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from naming requests from the subdivision developer.

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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board approve the following road and right of way names in the Highsted Subdivision:

·        Stroma Avenue

·        Kemsley Lane

·        Kirby Lane

 

4.   Background 

4.1       This report is for the proposed names within the Highsted subdivision, in the Styx locality, for one new road and two new right of ways.

4.2       The subdivision is accessed from Highsted and Claridges Roads.

4.3       This subdivision will create approximately 50 new allotments.

4.4       Street and right of way names have been chosen to reflect the history of the area.

4.5       Stroma Avenue is named after an island off the coast of Scotland and the name is in keeping with existing road names in the Styx locality.

4.6       The name Highsted is a town in Kent, England.  It is also the surname of John Kirby Highsted who was one of the original European farmers of the area.  He farmed the area from the 1850’s.    

4.7       Kemsley Lane is named after a village in Kent, which is where John Kirby Highsted was originally from.

4.8       Kirby Lane is the middle name of John Kirby Highsted.

4.9       The road names are in accordance with the Council’s road naming policy and also Land Information New Zealand requirements. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Highsted Subdivision Locality Map

29

 

 

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

Bob Pritchard - Subdivisions Officer

Lelanie Crous - Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Brendan Anstiss - Acting General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

8.        Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive Proposed No Stopping

Reference:

16/973147

Contact:

Penny Gray

Enter email address

9418999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui Community Board to approve the no stopping restrictions on Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and is in response to residents’ requests in the area to look at the parking along Glasnevin Drive and concerns about visibility at the intersection due to parked cars on Glasnevin Drive.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north-west side of Glasnevin Drive commencing at a point 195 metres from its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres;

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-east side of Glasnevin Drive commencing at its south-western intersection with Glencullen Drive and extending in a south-westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres;

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-east of Glasnevin Drive commencing at its south-western intersection with Glencullen Drive and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 19 metres;

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-east side of the south-western arm of Glencullen Drive commencing at its intersection with Glencullen Drive and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 13 metres;

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south-west side of the south-western arm of Glencullen Drive commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south-easterly direction for a distance of 16 metres;

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north-west side of Glasnevin Drive commencing at a point 195 metres from its intersection with Sawyers Arms Road and extending in a north-easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install no stopping restrictions at the intersection of Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Increases sightlines at the intersection of Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive.

·     The centreline markings help position traffic through the intersection.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes two parking

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Glasnevin Drive is a local 9 metre wide road.  There is residential development on its south-eastern side and a strip of reserve and the Papanui Club on the north-western side.

5.2       The Papanui Club is popular and some patrons are choosing to park in Glasnevin Drive rather than the car park provided outside of the club.  This mainly occurs on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings.

5.3       Residents in this area have raised concerns about visibility at the intersection due to parked cars on Glasnevin Drive.

5.4       A 9m road allows parking on both sides of the road and 2-way traffic.  This uses minimum lane widths which generally slows traffic due to the vertical friction caused by the parked cars.  Glasnevin Drive between Ballybrack Place and Glencullen Drive has a slight bend in it which adds to the minimum lane widths. 

5.5       At present the parking mainly occurs on the park side of Glasnevin Drive, not outside of residential properties.  Staff considered removing the parking on the park side but this would likely shift the parking to outside of residents' properties.  Staff would not recommend removing the parking on the park side due to this reason. 

5.6       There is road narrowing at the intersection with Glencullen Drive and no stopping restrictions across the head of this tee intersection.

5.7       It has been reported that cars are parking very close to and at times within the road narrowed section reducing conspicuity of the intersection and visibility through the intersection.

5.8       The proposal extends the no stopping restrictions and makes it clear to road users they cannot park in the narrowed road section around the intersection of Glencullen Drive and Glasnevin Drive.  This will improve the visibility of and through the intersection.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Install No Stopping Restrictions at the intersection of Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install no stopping restrictions at the intersection of Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       Community consultation on the Glasnevin Drive/Glencullen Drive intersection proposed no stopping was undertaken from Friday 22 July to Wednesday 8 August 2016.

6.7       A total of 70 leaflets were hand delivered to properties on Glasnevin Drive, Glencullen Drive and Baldoyle Way between Ballybrack Place and Dinglebay Place. The leaflet was also sent to 57 key stakeholders and 6 absentee owners.

6.8       During the course of the engagement, Council received 21 submissions. 14 respondents were in support of the proposal, five respondents did not support the proposal and two respondents did not state their preference.

6.9       The following feedback was received in support of the proposal:

·    General support for the installation of no stopping lines

·    Support for the proposed centre line

6.10    During the consultation, the following concerns and suggestions were raised:

·    No stopping lines should be extended on the west side of Glasnevin Drive all the way from Sawyers Arms Road through the Glencullen Drive (south) intersection

·    Installation of stopping lines is also needed at the Glasnevin Drive/Sawyers Arms Road intersection past the traffic island (north of 3 Glasnevin Drive) – fill in the gap between the existing no stopping lines

·    Increase existing no stopping lines on the west side of Glasnevin Drive in both directions

·    Installation should be on the west side of Glasnevin Drive along the entire length of the Papanui Club footprint to the north entrance of Glencullen Drive

·    No stopping restrictions should be on the east side (and west) of Glasnevin Drive

·    Limit east side of Glasnevin Drive to ‘residents only’ parking

·    No stopping lines should be on Glasnevin Drive not Glencullen Drive. Cars do not park where you have proposed the no stopping lines on Glencullen Drive

·    The width of Glasnevin Drive is too narrow for parking on both sides. The problem will be there unless the corner is widened

·    Remove the width restrictions from the south-west side of Glasnevin Drive/Glencullen Drive intersection

·    Experience a restricted view when leaving Glencullen Drive (south) to enter Glasnevin Drive due to vehicles parking on both sides of the street

6.11    As a result of consultation, the following change has been made to the final plan for approval:

·    The no stopping restrictions on both sides of Glasnevin Drive has been extended by 9 metres south-west of its intersection with Glencullen Drive, to help with visibility at this intersection.

6.12    A number of submitters highlighted a separate issue at the Sawyers Arms Road/Glasnevin Drive intersection which was out of scope of this project. To address this concern, a separate consultation will be undertaken which proposes extending no parking restrictions north of 3 Glasnevin Drive to close the gap between existing no stopping restrictions.

6.13    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

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

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation - $700

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect on the overall asset is minimal.

6.17    Funding source – Traffic operations budget

Legal Implications

6.18    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.

6.19    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.

6.20    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

6.21    Not applicable

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.23    Implementation timeframe – four weeks once the area contractor has received the request

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Increases sightlines at the intersection of Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive

·   The centreline markings help direct traffic through the intersection.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes two parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       This intersection remains as is.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with this level.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Refer to sections 6.6 to 6.13 of this report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations 

7.11    Not applicable

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No construction costs

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The restricted visibility at this intersection is not addressed.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Shirley/Papanui Community Board - Glasnevin Drive and Glencullen Drive Proposed No stopping Plan tg129385

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

Author

Penny Gray - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steve Parry - Manager Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Operations Manager

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

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

Reference:

16/991053

Contact:

Ryan Rolston

ryan.rolston@ccc.govt.nz

941 8516

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek that the Shirley/Papanui Community Board considers the scheme design for the Victoria Street An Accessible City (AAC) project and provides its feedback and recommendations to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee. 

Origin of Report

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

1.3       The project area extends over three community board areas, as well as the section of the cbd where only the Council has authority to make decisions on transport matters.  The northern side of Bealey Avenue at its intersection with Durham Street is within the Shirley / Papanui ward.  Due to the complexity, the project has been called in as a Metropolitan project.  This means that Council makes the decisions on the project.  This report enables the Community Board to have input to the decision making process through the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, which meet on 16 September to make a recommendation to Council on this project. 

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Recommend that the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee adopt the scheme designs relating to the Victoria Street An Accessible City proposed streetscape improvements and transport changes. 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

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

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

4.1.2   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.1.3   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

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

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

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

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Is consistent with the AAC vision for the central city

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

·     Provides an enhanced streetscape

·     Addresses dilapidated pavement, footpath and kerb and channel

·     Co-ordinated with pavement resurfacing on Bealey Avenue

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

·     Improves bus journey times and reliability on Victoria Street

·     Facilitates a cycle connection between Victoria Street and Victoria Square

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Reduced car parking

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

 

5.   Context/Background

An Accessible City

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

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

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

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

Streets and Spaces Design Guide

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

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

Problem Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Option Description

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

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

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

6.4       The key features of the works package include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·     Provide additional pedestrian space around the heritage Clock Tower.

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

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

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

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

Parking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

 

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

6.15    Analysis of the 307 submissions received revealed that feedback was divided, with 132 submitters (43 percent) generally supporting the proposals and 170 (55 percent) generally opposing them. Five submitters (2 percent) did not indicate a view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.34    Cost of Implementation is approximately $7.2M. 

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

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

·    Extensive consultation and media campaign.

·    Modifications to scheme where practicable.

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

·    Works planning to consider business trading hours.

·    Investigation of night work opportunities.

·    Advanced notifications and communication to business.

·    Approved Traffic Management Plans in place.

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

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

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

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

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.44    The advantages of this option include:

·   Is consistent with the AAC vision for the central city

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

·   Provides an enhanced streetscape

·   Addresses dilapidated pavement, footpath and kerb and channel

·   Co-ordinated with pavement resurfacing on Bealey Avenue

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

·   Improves bus journey times and reliability on Victoria Street

·   Facilitates a cycle connection between Victoria Street and Victoria Square

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

6.45    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduced car parking

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

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain Victoria Street in its current form.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

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

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Higher maintenance costs due to poor pavement condition

7.8       Funding source – n/a

Legal Implications

7.9       n/a

Risks and Mitigations

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

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

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - n/a

7.13    Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains current parking levels

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

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

·   Inconsistent with the AAC vision for the central city

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

·   Does not address public transport delays on Victoria Street

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Scheme Plans for Victoria Street

50

b

Parking Changes at Victoria Street and surrounds

58

c

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

59

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Ryan Rolston - Senior Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

10.    Cranford/Westminster Street Intersection Improvements and proposed no stopping.

Reference:

16/1040992

Contact:

 Enter contact

Enter email address

Enter phone.

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to provide the Community Board with the final recommendation to close out the report in relation to Cranford/Westminster Street intersection improvements and proposed no stopping of 19 August 2015.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the attached memo.

2.         Withdraw the report in relation to the Cranford/Westminster Street intersection improvements and proposed no stopping of 19 August 2015, currently laying on the table.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       Information provided in the attached memo.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Final memo to Community Board requesting withdrawal of report Cranford Westminster

62

 

 

Signatories

Author

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Approved By

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project management Transport

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

11.    Shirley/Papanui Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Funding Applications

Reference:

16/970450

Contact:

Christine Lane

Christine.lane@ccc.got.nz

941 5213

 

 

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Shirley/Papanui 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 Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Consider the applications as set out below:

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

Amberlee Allison

BBQ Dinner

 

30-40

 

$100

Maureen Donovan

 

BBQ with neighbours

 

60-70

 

$110

 

Betty Chapman

 

BBQ

 

39

 

$100

 

Vicki Meates

 

Street BBQ

 

26

 

$75

 

Pat Williams

 

Fundraising stall at the Shine Festival (sweet stall, face painting)

 

Not provided

$50

 

 

Denise Norriss

 

A pizza Sunday lunch

 

50

 

$120

 

Christine Rankin

 

Get-together with neighbours

 

30-37

 

$100

 

Carolyn Jones

 

11th yearly street BBQ for residents of Harrys Way and Gwen Place

 

70

 

$170

 

Fiona Moloney

 

BBQ

 

30+

 

$45

 

Murray Edlin

 

Community BBQ

 

40

 

$100

 

Marie Lysaght

 

Afternoon tea

 

18

 

$30

 

Ann Powley and

Jo Waddingham

 

Community Lunch with Guest Speaker

 

50

 

$150

 

Dorothy Bradley

 

Afternoon gathering

 

15

 

$30

 

Stephen Long

 

BBQ and social

 

50

 

$100

 

Gavin Cross

 

Annual street BBQ / get-together for residents

 

24-26

 

$60

 

Adela Brown

 

Street BBQ

 

30-40

 

$100

 

Suzanne Carter

 

BBQ for Ashton Mews residents

 

31

 

$70

 

Margaret Bowick

 

BBQ

 

40-50

 

$80

 

Mike Scott

 

Street BBQ

 

30

 

$75

 

Joanna Wortley

 

Street BBQ

 

35

 

$80

 

Deirdre Williams

 

Neighbourhood BBQ

 

30

 

$70

 

Vicki Chapman

 

Community picnic, Pedal Bike hire, Mr Whippy, games

 

90-120

 

$180

 

Janita and Michael Patrick

 

Community Street BBQ

 

30-40

 

$70

 

Carla Heritage

BBQ gathering

 

28

 

$70

 

Gail Turner

 

Neighbourhood lunch (we always do this mid-December)

60

 

$120

 

Matt Cummings

 

Garden BBQ

 

34-38

 

$90

 

Brendon Dowling

 

Street BBQ

 

50-60

 

$120

 

Emma Twaddell

 

BBQ

 

50

 

$125

 

Catherine Hume

 

Neighbourhood and playcentre BBQ

40

 

$100

 

Jo-anne Crawford

 

Get-together with neighbours

10

 

$75

 

Sandra Holden

 

Open day including afternoon tea

 

50-100

 

$125

 

Jeannette Gay

 

BBQ

 

40

 

$100

 

Odette Callagher

 

An open day and education evening for parents

Not provided

$50

 

Dianne Hitchings

 

BBQ and gathering

 

32

 

$70

 

Jacqui Whiting

 

Street BBQ in park on Ramore Place

64

 

$150

 

Yvonne McDonald

 

BBQ

 

50

 

$70

 

Alison Coles

 

Lunch

 

7

 

$35

 

Todd Smith

 

Neighbourhood get-together

 

30

 

$70

 

Joss Buttriss

 

Afternoon for Northcote community

 

50-60

 

$150

 

Nicky Millar

 

Community lunch

 

80

 

$150

 

Bill Delaney

 

Food for community mid-day dinner

 

50

 

$125

 

Pat Mulrooney

 

Street BBQ

 

40

 

$80

 

Total Recommendations

 

 

$3940

                                                                                                                                              

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

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

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

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

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

4.4       By the closing date, 42 applications had been received.  The applications were sorted and assessed to ensure that they met the guidelines for the Neighbourhood Week events, and staff recommended an amount to be allocated to each application.  In making the recommendations staff have endeavoured to maintain consistency 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 3 August 2016, the Board allocated $4,000 for Neighbourhood Week events in 2016.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Shirley Papanui Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Applications Received (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Shirley Papanui Neighbourhood Week 2016 - Application and Guidelines

67

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Sharon Munro - Community Support Officer

Christine Lane - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Burwood/Pegasus

  


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 September 2016

 

 

12.    Shirley/Papanui Community Board Area Update

Reference:

16/1016507

Contact:

Judith Pascoe

judith.pascoe@ccc.govt.nz

941 5414

 

 

1.   Board Activities

1.1       Information recently sent to the Board included:

1.2.1   Abberley Park Playground Renewal Consultation response

1.2.2   SCIRT Communication Snapshot – August

1.2.3   CHED Monthly update of Shirley/Papanui community facilities projects – August

1.2.4   Kainga Hall Public Toilets Strengthening Start Work Notice

1.2.5   Edgeware Village Master Plan Workshop consultation notes

2.   Community Activities

2.1       Road Condition: Matsons Avenue and St James Avenue

At their meeting of 17 February the Board asked for information on the condition of both Matsons Avenue and St James Avenue noting the potential increased traffic due to the opening of the Mitre 10 Superstore and any earthquake damage.

The Team Leader North and Central Road Maintenance has provided the following information.

Matsons Avenue

Matsons Avenue links Harewood Road with Condell Avenue. Traffic calming consists of three humps and it is tree-lined with mature trees. Road width is approximately eight metres excluding 2.5 metres of trees/parking on either side. A dish channel is installed on both sides of the road. The road has been patched in several places and is in a generally good condition despite there being some undulations in the road. According to the Council records the road was last resurfaced in 1988 and is likely to be programmed for a reseal in around 5 years’ time depending on its ongoing condition.

No visible effects of damage to the manhole covers in the road as a result of earthquakes was noted.

It is considered that any minimal increased traffic flows as a result of the Mitre 10 development will not adversely affect the road.

 

St James Avenue

St James Avenue runs between Harewood Road and Windermere/Blighs Road. Windermere Road to Dalriada Street was reconstructed in 2004 with flat channel and has a table top for traffic calming. The road edge from Dalriada Street to Harewood Road is still dish channel and the road surface is in reasonable condition with the occasional patch. Currently there is no planned date for renewal of the road surface between Dalriada Street and Harewood Road.

No visible effects of damage to the manhole covers in the road as a result of earthquakes was noted.

It is considered that any minimal increased traffic flows as a result of the Mitre 10 development will not adversely affect the road.

 

 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Shirley/Papanui Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Judith Pascoe - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Burwood/Pegasus

   


Shirley/Papanui Community Board

14 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.

 

Valedictories

·         Barbara Watson