Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Extraordinary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An extraordinary meeting of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 31 January 2017

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

26 January 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

gary.watson@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

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017

 

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

B       3.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

 

STAFF REPORTS

a       4.       Consultation On The Location Of Library, Aquatic, Recreational And Customer Service Facilities In South West Christchurch January 2017..................................................... 5

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Deputations by Appointment

There were no deputations by appointment at the time the agenda was prepared. 

 

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017

 

 

4.        Consultation On The Location Of Library, Aquatic, Recreational And Customer Service Facilities In South West Christchurch January 2017

Reference:

17/69308

Contact:

Lee Sampson

lee.sampson@ccc.govt.nz

941 6315

4 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to enable the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider options relating to the location and configuration of Library, Leisure Centre, Community and Customer Service facilities in South West Christchurch; and to make a recommendation to the Council to commence a community consultation and engagement process on the same.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated at the request of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, by reviewing community interest, impacts and the particular sensitivity to the potential utilisation of land in a number of potential locations currently held under the Reserves Act.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location of co-located (combined) Library, Leisure Centre, Community and Customer Service Facilities in South West Christchurch.

a.         Specific locations to be identified in community consultation include, Warren Park, Denton Park and Kyle Park.

b.         The consultation process will provide the community with the opportunity to offer alternative locations.

c.         The consultation process will provide the community with the opportunity to offer feedback on the co-location of facilities.

d.         The finalised consultation process will be signed off by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board before it is launched.

2.         That the broad scope of facilities to be provided are consistent with the 2015/2025 Long Term Plan and the resources set aside in this document for this purpose.  However, within this broad envelope the community consultation process will seek community feedback on the form, function and nature of facilities that best meet the current and future needs and aspirations of the community.

3.         Note that in order that the overall capital programme that supports this project is affordable to the Council, an ongoing commitment to divest local property that is deemed to be surplus to requirements, is needed.

4

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Libraries

·     Level of Service: 3.1.2 Residents have access to a physical and digital library relevant to local community need or profile

·     Level of Service: 7.0.1 Provide residents access to fit for purpose recreation and sporting facilities.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location of co-located (combined) Library, Leisure Centre, Community and Customer Service Facilities in South West Christchurch (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Defer consultation due to substantially changing the nature of the locations or the project itself.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The community are given the opportunity to become engaged in shaping a project they have shown considerable interest in.

·     The project has progressed to a point where community engagement is essential to it proceeding any further.

·     There is considerable community expectation to proceed.

·     The consultation format allows the community to identify sites not already considered.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     There may have been sites that have not been evaluated to date.

·     All of the identified sites will have drawbacks, there will not be a universally accepted ideal site.

 

5.   Context

5.1       Council planning and community consultation has resulted in the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025 providing for Library, Leisure Centre, Community and Customer Service Facilities in South West Christchurch.

Scope

5.2       Specific Libraries, Recreation and Sports, Customer and Community Facility planning processes combined with the prioritisation of projects against resources city wide in the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan processes has established a higher level scope and cost of facilities than is included in the 2015/2025 LTP and the 2016/2017 Annual Plan.

5.3       At a high level, the scope of facilities envisaged includes:

·   A co-located built area of between 4,100m2 and 4,400m2

4·   Library Facilities

·   Gym/Community Gym/Fitness Facilities or the like

·   Leisure/Play Water, Lane Swimming Water, Swim Education Water

·   Community Governance staff facilities

·   Community Meeting Rooms

·   Customer Service Facilities

·   Works to minimise impacts on existing users of sites such as park users and sports codes.

Budget

5.4       The Council has set aside $34,332,000 in the 2015/2025 LTP.  This figure will be inflation adjusted to the year in which it is spent.  An independent Quantity Surveyor has confirmed that on current assumptions and at this early stage, a co-located facility of this nature is affordable within this financial envelope.

Separate or Co-Located (Combined) Facilities

5.5       Consideration was given up front to co-located or separate facilities because this consideration would significantly steer the project going forward.  Table 1 below illustrates some of the considerations covered:

Table 1:  The Co-Location of Facilities

Factor

Co-Location

Separate Facilities

Land Use

Requires less land as facilities are shared

Requires more land, sometimes duplicating services like car parks

Built Area

Smaller built area as many building functions are shared e.g. cleaning room, plant room, and foyer.

Larger built area, sometimes duplicating building functions

Multi-Function

Supports community requests for a greater degree of multi-function i.e. the ability to do more things in close proximity

Promotes specific trips to specific locations for specific functions

Site Availability

Potentially less sites available as the sites need to be larger

Communities tend to have a greater variety of smaller sites to choose from

CAPEX Cost

Current suite of facilities can be built for about $2.5 M less if co-located

Current suite of facilities are about $2.5 M more if not co-located

OPEX Cost

Current suite of facilities will cost about $120K less to operate of co-located this figure may grow

Separate facilities tend to incur higher OPEX costs due to duplication and smaller quantity

Facility Distribution

Co-located facilities by their nature tend to be concentrated in one point

Separate facilities have the opportunity to be more spread around communities.

Accessibility

Co-located facilities offer more options more choice and are generally more accessible to more people

Separate facilities are often single purpose

Civic Heart

Co-located facilities tend to bring more people together for more reasons in one place, centralise communities around a focal point or points

Separate facilities tend to disperse people often where it is felt that an area may already be too crowded or another area may need a boost

Environment

Co-located facilities tend to be inherently more environmentally friendly in their construction, operation, nature of use but also in the reduction of multiple trips to access different services

Promotes specific trips to specific locations for specific functions and tend to be less environmentally friendly initially and in the long term

4

5.6       Applying the considerations in Table 1 to the project and the long list of potential locations available, the co-location option was preferred primarily for CAPEX, OPEX, environmental, multi-use and civic-heart considerations.

Location

5.7       The project team collated the criteria used by the Council for determining locations for its community facilities such as libraries and pools.  The criteria were given weightings and a more robust definition.  Under each of the criteria an “ideal site” was described in order to provide greater clarity.  The criteria, weightings and ideal site are detailed on the South Eest Library, Customer Services and Leisure Facility Site Search Qualitative Assessment Document attached to this report as Attachment A.

5.8       The project team then undertook a structured (quantitative) assessment of a wide arc of locations predominantly based around the Hornby, Sockburn and Wigram geographic areas.  The identified locations were cross-referenced and evaluated against weighted criteria and a detailed draft matrix was produced. The draft matrix was work shopped by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on 24 January 2017 and further changes were made.  The South West Library, Customer Services and Leisure Facility Site Search Qualitative Assessment Document attached to this report as Attachment A, details the results of this evaluation.

5.9       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board considered all locations on the matrix in order to establish a short list.  Locations that were of insufficient size, needed to be purchased at significant cost, or involved the risk of a considerable time delay, were afforded a lower priority.

5.10    The three locations identified by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consult upon were, in order of ranking:

·   Denton Park 80 per cent

·   Kyle Park 68 per cent

·   Warren Park 62 per cent

5.11    The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board also asked that:

·   The consultation process will provide the community with the opportunity to offer alternative locations.

·   The consultation process will provide the community with the opportunity to offer feedback on the co-location of facilities.

·   The finalised consultation process will be signed off by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board before it is launched.

5.12    The community consultation will be based on the Council’s best practice model customised to the needs and attributes of the local community.  Following the consultation and engagement process, a report will be prepared for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and the Council summarising the results and will recommend further action.

6.   Option 1 - Approve Community Consultation

Option Description

46.1       Approve the commencement of a community consultation and engagement process regarding options for the location of co-located (combined) Library, Leisure Centre, Community and Customer Service Facilities in South West Christchurch.

Significance

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

6.3       Prior and planned community consultation meets the requirement for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community views and preferences have not yet been sought.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $5,000 (consultative process)

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

6.9       Funding source – Operational budgets set aside for this purpose

Legal Implications

6.10    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    Risk of a lost opportunity due to a potentially suitable site not identified to date caused by a gap site analysis.  This will result in a lost opportunity to locate on a suitable site.

6.11.1 Treatment: Invite the wider community to identify sites.

6.11.2 Residual risk rating: Low

6.12    A risk that none of the three sites identified is able to host a collocated facility of the scope described in this report.  This will result in having to begin the site selection process again with time and cost implications.

6.12.1 Treatment: A high level feasibility has been undertaken on Denton Park as the highest scoring location.  This has confirmed that a co-located facility of the scope and cost required can be built.

6.12.2 Residual risk rating: Low

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - None

6.14    Implementation timeframe – Three months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The community are given the opportunity to become engaged in shaping a project they have shown considerable interest in.

4·   The project has progressed to a point where community engagement is essential to it proceeding any further.

·   There is considerable community expectation to proceed.

·   The consultation format allows the community to identify sites not already considered.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There may have been sites that have not been evaluated to date.

·   All of the identified sites will have drawbacks, there will not be a universally accepted ideal site.

7.   Option 2 - Defer Consultation

Option Description

7.1       Defer consultation due to substantially changing the nature of the locations or the project itself.

Significance

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

7.3       Prior and planned community consultation meets the requirement for this level of significance.

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       There is a strong will for the facility to proceed within the wider community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Nil

Legal Implications

7.9       Nil

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Risk of public discontentment.  This will result in reputational risks and backlash.

7.10.1 Treatment: Comprehensive communication programme.

7.10.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is very high.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - None

7.12    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provide opportunity to consider more locations or refine the criteria.

47.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Will delay the project.

·   Will risk severe community discontentment and anxiety.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Southwest Library, Customer Services and Leisure Facility Site Search Qualitative Assessment

12

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Filsell - Head of Recreation and Sports

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017

 

4PDF Creator


 

4PDF Creator


 

4PDF Creator


 

4PDF Creator


 

4PDF Creator


 

4PDF Creator

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

31 January 2017