Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 30 January 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

25 January 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@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

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 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

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

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

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

C       6.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 21  

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Bromley Road - Pedestrian Island................................................................................ 23

C       8.       Canterbury Horticultural Society - Application to Assign Lease to Canterbury Cricket Trust................................................................................................................................ 33

C       9.       Bells Creek Outfall Landscape Plan and Tree Removal.............................................. 47

C       10.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Youth Development Fund Applications - Francesca Jane Beaton and Tei Henson Driver ........................................................... 69

C       11.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Youth Development Fund Application - Hayley May Hall, Isobel Judith Owens and Meg McInroe...................................................... 73

Cc     12.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund Application - Holy Trinity Avonside Anglican and Linwood College........................................................ 77

C       13.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Application - Canterbury Music Education Trust................................................................................................... 81

Cc     14.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Meeting Schedule February - December 2017.............................................................................................................. 85

C       15.     Community Board Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons 2017 Workshop.......... 87

C       16.     Update to Community Board....................................................................................... 89

B       17.     Elected Member Information Exchange...................................................................... 95

B       18.     Question Under Standing Orders................................................................................. 95 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 12 December 2016 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Wainoni/Avonside Community Services Trust

 

Betty Chapman, Community Co-ordinator will speak on behalf of Wainoni/Avonside Community Services Trust regarding the Trust’s history, its programme of activities and how the programme reflects the current needs of its local community.

 

4.2

Friends of Redcliffs Park

 

Chris Doudney, Duncan Currie and Simi Desor will speak on behalf of Friends of Redcliffs Park to outline the Friends’ concerns on the proposed loss of Redcliffs Park if transferred to the Ministry of Education for use as a school site.

 

4.3

Gracefield Avenue – Street Tree Removal

 

Darrel Campbell, Gracefield Avenue property owner will discuss with the Board her application to have a street tree removed.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 12 December 2016

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 Boardroom,
180 Smith Street, Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

9 December 2016

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@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

 

 

Chairperson Sally Buck was an apology from the meeting and Deputy Chairperson Jake McLellan took the chair.

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00028

That apologies for lateness from Sally Buck, Yani Johanson, Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Deon Swiggs be accepted.

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00029

Part C

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 be confirmed subject to the following addition to Clause 13.1:

13.       Elected Member Information Exchange.

13.1    Members discussed having the freedom to make submissions on behalf of the Linwood‑Central-Heathcote Community Board.  The Board Chair was to raise this issue at the Community Board Chairpersons and Staff Forum.  The Deputy Chair was also to include this information in his Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board report to the full Council meeting.

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Christchurch Yacht Club

 

             Trevor Kite presented on behalf of Christchurch Yacht Club regarding the rebuilding of a new boat shed, part of which the coastal pathway is to pass.  The Club sought the Board's support for approaching Council for funding to build the part of the coastal pathway near their boat shed. 

Yani Johanson joined the meeting at 10:05am.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson joined the meeting at 10:07am.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00030

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Write a letter in support of the Christchurch Yacht Club’s proposal in time for the Christchurch Yacht Club’s deputation to the next Council meeting.

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

The Board thanked Mr Kite for his deputation.

4.2       Earthquake Commission (EQC)

 

             Keith Land, Head of Canterbury Land Settlement, Earthquake Commission presented to the Board the latest update as to the settlement of Canterbury Land claims.  He noted that a few hundred earthquake damage claims remain unresolved but will be resolved in the future.  He acknowledged that lessons learnt from the Canterbury earthquake claims process will be applied to current and future earthquake damage claims.

The Board thanked Mr Land for his deputation and  professionalism in his work.

 

4.3       Sumner Suburban Master Plan - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue

 

             Chris Milne, property owner of units within the Village Mall and Marriner Street, spoke about his observations and concerns of traffic and car parking within the environs of the Village Mall in Sumner relating to the Sumner Suburban Master Plan – Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue report.

The Board thanked Mr Milne for his deputation.

 

4.4       Sumner Suburban Master Plan - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue

 

             Sarah Agnew, Managing Director of Stoked Sumner, spoke about her opposition of the position of the proposed bus stop in relation to the Sumner Suburban Master Plan – Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue Report.  Ms Agnew also read aloud an email from James Godinet from the Beachside Convenience Store that expressed his views in opposition to the position of proposed bus stop location.

The Board thanked Ms Agnew for her deputation.

 

4.5       Edmonds Park - Bells Creek Realignment Landscape Planting

The Board accepted a late deputation from Karin Roberts and Dion Currie who voiced their concerns about the open drain and walkway that is proposed as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works.

The Board thanked Ms Roberts and Mr Currie for their deputation. (Refer to Item 9 - Edmonds Park - Bells Creek Realignment Landscape Planting).

 

11. Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue

 

Board Comment

The Board discussed the issues raised by the deputations relating to the placing of the bus stop and the subsequent removal of on-street parking proposed within the Sumner Suburban Master Plan.  While other proposals were discussed, it was noted that there is no perfect location for the bus stop.  Following discussion with the planning staff, it was decided that the staff could propose a further amendment given a short interval to gain advice.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00031

It was resolved on the motion of Deputy Chairperson Jake McLellan, seconded by Tim Lindley that Item 11 be deferred to later in the meeting after staff have sought further advice and can propose an amended recommendation.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00032 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Correspondence Report dated 12 December 2016

Alexandra Davids/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                      Carried

 

7.   Staff Briefings

         7.1          Board Communications

                                      Di Keenan, Head of Public Information and Participation discussed with the Board the work of the Public Information and Participation team including Newsline, and the Council Facebook page.  The team are also a resource for the Board to use to disseminate local news including through a Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Facebook page.

         7.2          Heritage Earthquake Repairs with Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board Area

                         Richie Moyle, Programme Management – Heritage, updated the Board on the Heritage rebuild projects with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area.

 

Deon Swiggs joined the meeting at 11:19am.

Alexandra Davids left the meeting at 11:21am and returned to the meeting at 11:24am.

         7.3          Ensors Road/Brougham Street/Opawa Road Intersection Improvement Project

             Kirsty Mahoney, Project Manager, advised the Board on the upcoming consultation on the Ensors Road/Brougham Street/Opawa Road intersection improvement project.

         7.4          Rebuild of Sumner Community Centre and Library

Matt Cummins, Programme Management – Community Facilities Rebuild, gave the Board an update on the rebuild of the Sumner Community Centre and Library.

         7.5          Linwood Village and Sydenham Master Plans Update

Katie Smith, Urban Regeneration, advised the Board on the progress of the Linwood Village and Sydenham Master Plans.

 

The meeting adjourned at 11.50am  and recommenced at 12.01pm.

         7.6          Parks Maintenance Update

Simon Curtis, Parks Advisor, and Al Hardy, Operations Manager - Neighbourhood & Sports Parks Team gave a parks maintenance update.

         7.7          Land Drainage Recovery Programme Overview

Peter Christenson, Land Drainage and Stormwater, gave a concise overview of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

 

         7.8          Avon River Temporary Stopbanks Project

Peter Christenson  and Bob Mohammed, Land Drainage and Stormwater, advised the Board of the upcoming Avon River Temporary Stopbanks project work.

 

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00033 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings.

Jake McLellan/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

Chairperson Sally Buck joined the meeting at 12:42pm.

 

8.   Matuku Waterway Widening - Cooks Reserve Landscape Plan

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00034 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the Cooks Reserve landscape plantings proposed to be planted as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works to widen Matuku Waterway.

Jake McLellan/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.04pm  and recommenced at 1.50pm.

 

9.   Edmonds Park - Bells Creek Realignment Landscape Planting

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the Edmonds Park landscape plantings proposed to be planted as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00035

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the Edmonds Park landscape plantings proposed to be planted as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works. 

Jake McLellan/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                          Carried

Note: Yani Johanson voted against the resolution.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00036

2.         That the Board request staff to work with the Ministry of Education and neighbouring residents on mitigating the impacts of the walkway.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00037

3.         That the new public access space be added to the Council’s Maintenance Schedule. 

Alexandra Davids/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

Darrell Latham left the meeting at 2:35pm.

 

10. Medway Street - Street Renewal

 

Board Comment

1.         The Board sought staff advice about planting of extra trees along the street and it was noted that additional trees could be added to the berms outside of some properties in Medway Street.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35.5 metres;

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at a point 47 metres west of its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres;

3.         Approved that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres;

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at a point 39 metres west of its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for 16 metres.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00038

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35.5 metres;

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Medway Street commencing at a point 47 metres west of its intersection with Flesher Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 23 metres;

3.         Approved that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 21 metres;

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern side of Medway Street commencing at a point 39 metres west of its intersection with Woodchester Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for 16 metres.

5.         That street trees be planted outside numbers 15, 45 and 52 with property owners agreement.

Jake McLellan/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

11. Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West & Wakefield Avenue Continued

 

Board Comment

The Board received a copy of the amended staff recommendation that took into account the issues raised about the removal of on-street parking for the proposed bus stop.

 

 

Original Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its power under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Community Board resolutions on the Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Enhancements Report at the Council Meeting of 12 December 2016.

Rescind the following resolutions made on the 17th February 2016 for the 'Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue Enhancements' report:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with Nayland Street and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 61.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.5 metres.

61.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 12.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 26.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 57 metres.

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 83.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

Resolve the following in replacement:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with The Esplanade and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 66.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres.

61.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 15.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 32.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 43 metres.

63.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 75.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

 

Amended Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its power under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Community Board resolutions on the Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Enhancements Report at the Council Meeting of 12 December 2016.

Rescind the following resolutions made on the 17th February 2016 for the 'Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue Enhancements' report:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with Nayland Street and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 61.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.5 metres.

61.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 12.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 26.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 57 metres.

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 83.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

Resolve the following in replacement:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with The Esplanade and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 66.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A (TP342701 Issue 4, dated 12/12/2016).

 

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres.

 

61.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 15.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

 

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 32.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

 

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 63.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

 

 

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A (TP342701 Issue 4, dated 12/12/2016), including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

 

84.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 69.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

 

85.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 75.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00039

Part C

That the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its power under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the Community Board resolutions on the Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Enhancements Report at the Council Meeting of 12 December 2016.

Rescind the following resolutions made on the 17th February 2016 for the 'Sumner Suburban Master Plan P1.1 - Marriner Street West and Wakefield Avenue Enhancements' report:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with Nayland Street and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 61.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A.

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12.5 metres.

61.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 12.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 26.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 57 metres.

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 83.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street , and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

Resolve the following in replacement:

53.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Marriner Street, commencing at a point 172 metres south east of its intersection with The Esplanade and, following the kerb line which becomes Wakefield Avenue, extending for a distance of 66.5 metres in a south easterly direction which turns into a southerly direction, as detailed on Attachment A (TP342701 Issue 4, dated 12/12/2016).

 

60.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 15.5 metres.

 

61.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 15.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

 

62.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 32.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of 31 metres.

 

63.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 63.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of six metres.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Sunday, 9:00am to 5:00pm.

 

84.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at point 69.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street and extending in a Northerly direction for a distance of six metres.

 

85.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the east side of Wakefield Avenue, commencing at a point 75.5 metres north of its intersection with Nayland Street, and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

83.       Approve the general layout for the Sumner Suburban Master Plan as detailed in Attachment A (TP342701 Issue 4, dated 12/12/2016), including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments and line markings.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Darrell Latham left the meeting at 2.35pm and returned to the meeting at 2:36pm.

 

12. 269 Mt Pleasant Road - Easement

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00040 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve as administering body pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to convey water over 269/R Mt Pleasant Road (Lot 2 DP 384979), shown as the areas marked “C & G” on Land transfer Plan numbered 482976 attached to this report.

2.         Endorse that the Chief Executive, acting under sub delegation from the Council, exercises the Minister of Conservations consent to the easement, as delegated to the Council from the Minister under the Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12th June 2013.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

Jake McLellan/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

13. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Meeting Schedule 2017

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00041 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Adopt the following meeting schedule until 31 March 2017

Monday 30 January 2017                                       10am

Wednesday 15 February 2017                             3pm

Monday 13 March 2017                                         10am

Wednesday 29 March 2017                                  3pm

2.         Review its ordinary meeting schedule and arrangements in early 2017 for the remainder of the 2016/19 term.

Jake McLellan/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

 

14. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2016/17

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00042(Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and at least two Board members, to be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the period following its ordinary meeting on 12 December 2016 up until the Board resumes normal business in 2017.

2.         Reports back to the Board, the application of any such delegation, for record purposes.

3.         Notes that any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and details forwarded to all Board members.

Jake McLellan/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

Sally Buck left the meeting at 2.50pm and returned to the meeting at 2.52pm.

Sally Buck left the meeting at 3:09pm.

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 3:11pm.

 

15. Linwood-Heathcote-Heathcote Community Board Area Update

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

2.         That the Board nominate a Board member to be on the Woolston Community Facility Project Work Group.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2016/00043

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

2.         That the Board nominates Alexandra Davids, Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Yani Johanson to be on the Woolston Community Facility Project Work Group.

Jake McLellan/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

16. Elected Member Information Exchange

 

The Board received information from members on the following:

 

1.         The Board discussed the position of business signage above Gollans Point on the rock stabilisation netting.  The Board agreed to seek staff advice on the appropriateness of the signage.

2.         The Homeless Hui will be happening on the 27 January and 31 March 2017.  The services provided to the homeless is closer to getting funding from Te Puna Kōkiri.  They are seeking to buy four containers and place them on Christchurch City Council land.

3.         Board members discussed the Council decision making process in relation to Community Boards’ ability to have input on the new cycleways.

4.         The Board were advised that a report on the future of Lancaster Park is being considered by the Council on Thursday 15 December 2016.

5.         The Board enquired about Sumner residents concern about a backpackers operating illegally in Sumner. The Board agreed to seek staff advice on the Backpackers in Marriner Street, Sumner.

6.         The Board were updated that the discussion on Community Boards’ ability to make submissions had not occurred owning to time constraints at the Council 8 December 2016 meeting.

 

17. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.28pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

 

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

16/1474617

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Redcliffs Residents’ Association

Security Fencing Main Road Redcliffs

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 30 January 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Redcliffs Residents' Association - Security Fencing Main Road Redcliffs

22

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

7.        Bromley Road - Pedestrian Island

Reference:

16/1391678

Contact:

Andy Cameron

Andy.Cameron@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a pedestrian refuge island with associated 'No Stopping' restrictions on Bromley road at the intersection of Keighleys Road. Please refer to Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a deputation made to the Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board by Bromley Community Association over concerns for the safety of school children crossing Bromley Road at the intersection with Keighleys Road.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

1.         Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

2.         Approves that a central pedestrian refuge island be constructed on Bromley Road, at the intersection with Keighleys in accordance with Attachment A.

3.         Approve the following no stopping restrictions:

a.         That stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Keighleys Road commencing at its intersection with Bromley Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

b.         That stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Bromley Road commencing at its intersection with Keighleys Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 40 metres.

c.         That stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Bromley Road commencing at its intersection with Keighleys Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

d.         That stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Keighleys Road commencing at its intersection with Bromley Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

 

3.   Key Points

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

3.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

3.2.1   Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge on Bromley Road at the junction with Keighleys Road on the desire line for pedestrians using Keighleys Road.  (preferred option)

3.2.2   Option 2 – As Option 1 with priority change

3.2.3   Option 3 –Do Nothing

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

3.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·  Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Bromley road on the desire line by providing a crossing facility.

·  The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages.

3.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·  Parking availability will be reduced by 12 parking spaces in total, 5 on the north side and  4 on the south side of Bromley road, and 1 on south east side and 2 on the north east side of Keighleys Road.

Community Feedback

3.4       Community engagement on the Bromley Road Pedestrian Refuge Installation was undertaken from Monday 28 November to 16 December 2016.

3.5       A total of 110 leaflets were hand delivered to Bromley, Keighleys, and Raymond Roads. The leaflet was also sent to 93 key stakeholders and 33 absentee owners.

3.6       During the course of engagement, Council received only two phone calls in relation to this project. One resident (an adjacent neighbour) was calling to congratulate staff for the proposed pedestrian refuge installation and fully supported the proposal.  The second caller (from a different suburb) inquired about handrail positions which were not indicated on the map. After staff clarified that hand rails are to be installed the caller was satisfied with the proposal.

 

4.   Context/Background

Background

·  A briefing was given to the Hagley/Ferrymead community Board on 05/04/2016 providing options for improved pedestrian safety around Bromley School and the Bromley Community Centre. This was carried out in response to Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board's request on 18 November 2015 in relation to a deputation from Cathy Baker representing Bromley Community Association. The deputation was in regard to pedestrian safety around Bromley School and the Bromley Community Centre.

·  This briefing identified and investigated three possible areas for a pedestrian upgrade resulting in the Bromley/Keighleys Roads intersection being chosen as the preferred option.

·  Subsequently this location received further investigation including further pedestrian and vehicle counts.

Proposal

4.1       It is proposed to install a pedestrian refuge island  with associated 'No Stopping' restrictions. The location of the island is on Bromley road at the intersection of Keighleys Road. Please refer to Attachment A.

·                An independent safety audit has been carried out for this pedestrian refuge in accordance with the "NZTA road safety audit procedures for projects guideline" and concluded that there was one safety issue relating to the position of the stop controls which has been addressed through a change in the line marking design.


 

5.   Option 1 - Install a pedestrian refuge on Bromley Road at the junction with Keighleys Road (preferred)

Option Description

5.1       Install a pedestrian refuge on Bromley Road at the junction with Keighleys Road

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

5.4       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

5.5       Local residents are specifically affected by this option due to it addressing several nuisance factors that currently affect them. The views of both respondents were generally supportive and included the following comments:

·        That slowing down traffic at this intersection would be beneficial in making it safer and less noisy.

·        That replacing the current Give Way sign with a Stop sign would help even more.

·        That the proposed pedestrian refuge will improve safety for children walking to school.

This intersection does not meet current standards for the purpose of introducing stop controls which is why it is proposed to remain as a Give Way.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

5.7       Cost of Implementation – estimated to be $41,000

5.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

5.9       Funding source – 2017 CAPEX Road Safety At Schools

Legal Implications

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

5.11    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 parking restrictions, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

5.12    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    

5.13    Not Applicable

Implementation

5.14    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by community board

5.15    Implementation timeframe - Construction to be completed by the end of this financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

5.16    The advantages of this option include:

·  Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Bromley Road by providing a crossing facility.

·  The pedestrian refuge island gives pedestrians a safe place to wait when crossing the road in two stages.

·  The location provided is on the existing desire line.

5.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·  Loss of parking. Availability will be reduced by 10 parking spaces total, 5 on the north side and  4 on the south side of Bromley road, and 1 on south east side and 2 on the north east side of Keighleys Road.


 

6.   Option 2 – Install a pedestrian refuge on Bromley Road at the junction with Keighleys Road and change Traffic priority

Option Description

6.1       Install a pedestrian refuge on Bromley Road at the junction with Keighleys Road and change Traffic priority

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low, 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

6.5       This option was not consulted on as the project team identified the disadvantages of this option outweighed the advantages. This is described further in the option summary below.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – estimated to be $41,000

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.9       Funding source – 2017 CAPEX Road Safety At Schools.

Legal Implications

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

6.11    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 parking restrictions, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

6.12    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    

6.13    Not Applicable

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Approval by community board.

6.15    Implementation timeframe - Construction to be completed by the end of this financial year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Priority will be given to the dominant flow of traffic.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·  Further traffic may be attracted to using this route.

·                Traffic speeds may increase.

·                Loss of parking. Availability will be reduced by 10 parking spaces total, five on the north side and four on the south side of Bromley road, and 1 on south east side and 2 on the north east side of Keighleys Road.

7.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Bromley Road will remain as is.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       Bromley Primary School are specifically affected by this option due to not receiving the facility that they have requested through the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.  Their views are Option 1 should be adopted.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as it does not address known pedestrian safety issues.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - None

Legal Implications

7.7       None

Risks and Mitigations    

7.8       Not applicable

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies  - none

7.10    Implementation timeframe - none

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·  No loss of parking

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·  This option does not address any proposed safety issues.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Scheme - Plan - Bromley Road at Keighleys Road - Intersection - Consultation Plan - tp354901 - 2016-11-17

31

 

 

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

Andy Cameron - Junior Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Kim Swarbrick - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

8.        Canterbury Horticultural Society - Application to Assign Lease to Canterbury Cricket Trust

Reference:

17/43763

Contact:

Kathy Jarden

Kathy.jarden@ccc.govt.nz

941-8203

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to give comment to the Council  in relation to an application received for consent to:

1.1.1   The proposed assignment of the existing Canterbury Horticultural Society Incorporated (“CHS”) ground lease to Canterbury Cricket Trust (“CCT”); and

1.1.2   Certain variations of the terms of that lease.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated on the request of CHS and CCT.

1.3       The matter is being reported to Council’s 26 January 2016 meeting owing to the deadline in the conditional sale and purchase agreement between CHS and CCT of 28 February 2017.

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 staff evaluation against the criteria in the Council’s significance and engagement policy as follows:

·     Number of people affected and/or with an interest – CHS and CCT are the only parties directly affected by the proposed lease decisions.  The users of the existing Horticultural Hall will be affected as the activities previously undertaken there will be moved elsewhere. 

·     Level of impact on those people affected – the level of impact will be low.

·     Level of community interest already apparent for the issue, proposal or decision, or the potential to generate community interest – given the controversy in the recent past surrounding the use of Hagley Oval by CCT, the proposed decisions concerning the proposed lease assignment and variation, albeit that they are minor decisions, are likely to generate some community interest on a city wide basis.

·     Level of impact on Māori, Māori culture and traditions – no specific impact on Māori, Māori culture and traditions identified

·     Possible environmental, social and cultural impacts – the conversion of the building for cricket and recreational purposes will improve the cricket and recreational opportunities available in this part of Hagley Park and complement the facilities available at the adjacent Hagley Oval and surrounding community cricket activity. A return to recreational uses for the building will deliver consistency with the recreational classification of Hagley Park under the Reserves Act 1977.

·     Possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision – none identified.

·     Possible benefits/opportunities to the Council to carry out its role and functions – a return to recreational uses for the Horticultural Hall building will deliver consistency with the recreational classification of Hagley Park under the Reserves Act 1977.

·     Whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed – cannot be easily reversed.

·     Whether the ownership or function of a strategic asset is affected – no effect on a strategic asset.

2.1.2   Given that the proposed lease variations contemplate a recreational use of the building consistent with the Reserves Act 1977, the view of staff is that those decisions are essentially of low significance.  The view of staff is that the possible public interest in these decisions in the context of the controversy surrounding Hagley Oval in the recent past elevates these decisions to a medium level when considering the level of community interest however overall the significance assessment is rated low. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Provide comment to the Council on the assignment of the existing Canterbury Horticultural Society Incorporated lease to Canterbury Cricket Trust.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

·     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 – Consent to the assignment and variations to the Lease (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline consent to the assignment and variations to the Lease

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     meeting Council’s legal obligations in the lease

·     a return to recreational uses for the Horticultural Hall building will deliver consistency with the recreational classification of Hagley Park under the Reserves Act 1977

·     ownership of the building returns to cricket

·     provision of year-round training facilities for all levels of community sport.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Public perception that cricket activities are dominating use of Hagley Park and the perception that commercial aspects of Sport are becoming more predominant.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Current Lease

5.1       CHS holds a ground lease dated 31 January 1991 in respect of the Horticultural Hall site in Hagley Park.  CHS owns the Horticultural Hall building.  The building was originally built by the Canterbury Cricket Association for cricket purposes and that organisation was the original tenant.

5.2       The current lease term expires 30 September 2030 and has provision for a further right of renewal with a final expiry of 30 September 2044.

5.3       The Council is the territorial local authority administering Hagley Park.  The Hagley Park Management Plan has been approved in accordance with section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977.  The proposed use of the Horticultural Hall building by CCT is in conformity with the Hagley Park Management Plan 2007.

5.4       As indicated in Attachment A to this report CHS wishes to exit the Horticultural Hall building in Hagley Park and to assign the ground lease to CCT.  For a number of years CHS has wished to exit from the site and focus more on their primary objective being the “the enjoyment and advancement of the science, art and practice of horticulture”.

Request for Assignment

5.5       As indicated in Attachment B to this report, CCT wishes to take an assignment of the ground lease.  CCT is an incorporated society and registered charity which was formed by Canterbury Cricket Association (CCA) in 2007 to act as a foundation and fundraiser for CCA.  CCT’S wider objectives are to foster and support the game of cricket in Canterbury and Westland and to provide charitable community benefits.

5.6       CCT holds a ground lease of the land under the Hagley Oval Pavilion and, as indicated in Attachment B to this report, CCT proposes to convert and use the Horticultural Hall back to its original built purpose and reuse it as an indoor cricket and sports facility.

5.7       CCT has entered into an agreement with CHS to purchase the Horticultural Hall building, conditional upon the Council as landlord consenting to the proposed lease assignment and agreeing to vary the lease to reflect the proposed use of the building for recreational purposes.

Request for Variations to Current Lease

5.8       Clause 3 of the Lease permits the tenant to use the building "for the promotion of botanic and horticultural activities and such recreational activities as may from time to time be approved ..."   As the reference in the lease to "the promotion of botanic and horticultural activities" would be inconsistent with the recreational use proposed by CCT, it is appropriate that the lease be varied to remove those references.  This changed use will also accord with the classification of Hagley Park as recreation reserve.

5.9       The proposed use is as follows:

"Sports and recreational facility (including administrative activities relating to the use of the facility and the associated reserve for sports and recreational activities)".

5.10    In addition it is proposed, to be consistent with Council's other Reserves Act leases, to include the following clause:

                             "Notwithstanding Clause 4, the Lessee may hire on a temporary or short-term basis the said facilities if:

 

a)   Such hire will enhance or promote the permitted use under Clause 3 of this lease; and

b)   Such hiring does not cause or result in a breach of the permitted use under Clause 3 of this lease.

 

5.11    As the proposal is to assign the Lease, no new lease is granted or created and accordingly the public notification requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 that apply to new grants of lease do not apply.

5.12    The Lease was granted under section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act, which permits the granting of leases on recreation reserve such as Hagley Park to “voluntary organisations” for “the erection of stands, pavilions . . ."  In addition, section 115 of the Reserves Act requires that the Lease may only be assigned to a voluntary organisation, which is defined as “any body or persons (whether incorporated or not) not formed for private profit”.  Canterbury Cricket Trust, as a registered charitable trust, therefore qualifies as a voluntary organisation.

5.13    Canterbury Cricket Trust (CCT) was formed by Canterbury Cricket Association (CCA) in 2007 to act as a foundation and fundraiser for CCA.  CCT’s wider objectives are to foster and support the game of cricket in Canterbury and Westland and to provide charitable community benefits.

Evaluation of Significance of the Assignment in Relation to the Reserves Act and The Hagley Park Management Plan

5.14    An assessment by the Senior Network Planner Parks has been undertaken and detailed in Attachment C.

5.15    The advice in this assessment supports the assignment of the lease to the Trust and is consistent with the Management Plan.

Cricket Activities at Hagley Park

5.16    South Hagley Park has been a focal point for all forms of cricket since the 1860’s.  More recently cricket grounds and ancillary facilities have been re-developed to support the playing of cricket on South Hagley Park at all levels.  The use of the Horticultural Hall building for cricket training, ancillary and support functions will complement other re-developments, particularly the community cricket grounds on Hospital Corner, within an existing building footprint and directly support the playing of cricket, particularly community cricket on South Hagley Park on an ongoing basis.

6.   Option 1 – Consent to the assignment and variations of the Lease (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Consent to the assignment of the lease and the variation of the lease terms requested.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       CHS and its members are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to sell their building asset.  Their views are supportive of this option.

6.6       CCT and its members are affected by this option as they wish to develop indoor facilities to complement cricket activity already on Hagley Park.  Their views are supportive of this option.

6.7       For a decision of this level of significance, and in view of the consistency of the proposal with the Management Plan, it is considered that no additional public engagement is required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – preparation of Deed of Assignment and Variation to be met by CCT.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - nil

6.11    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.12    Under Clause 4 of the Lease the Tenant is permitted to assign the lease to a third party with the consent of the Council as landlord.  Section 115(3) of the Reserves Act grants to the Council as landlord “power in the public interest and in its discretion to refuse any application for consent whatsoever or to grant its consent subject to such conditions as it thinks fit”.  Section 115(3) provides that the Council as landlord “may not grant its consent to a transfer or a sublease unless the transferee or sublessee is a voluntary organisation whose aims and objects are similar to those of the lessee”.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.13    Risk - Reputational/Image caused by media coverage.  This may result in some negative feedback from members of the public who oppose cricket and the use of Hagley Park for organised sport.

6.13.1 Treatment: communication plan developed for release to the media

6.13.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies  - approval by Council to assign and vary the lease

6.15    Implementation timeframe – two weeks for document preparation and execution

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   meeting Council’s legal obligations in the lease

·   a return to recreational uses for the Horticultural Hall building will deliver consistency with the recreational classification of Hagley Park under the Reserves Act 1977

·   ownership of the building returns to cricket ownership

·   provision of year-round training facilities

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Public perception that cricket activities are dominating use of Hagley Park and the perception that commercial aspects of Sport are becoming more predominant.

7.   Option 2 – Decline consent to assign and vary Lease

Option Description

7.1       Decline the request by Canterbury Horticultural Society to consent to the assignment and variation of the lease to CCT.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

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       CHS and its members are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to sell their building asset.  Their views would not support the status quo.

7.6       CCT and its members are also affected as they wish to create new training facilities in an already existing building on Hagley Park.  Their views would not support the status quo.

7.7       For a decision of this level of significance, and in view of the consistency of the proposal with the Management Plan, it is considered that no additional public engagement is required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – not applicable

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.11    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.12    Under Clause 4 of the Lease the Tenant is permitted to assign the lease to a third party with the consent of the Council as landlord.  Section 115(3) of the Reserves Act grants to the Council as landlord “power in the public interest and in its discretion to refuse any application for consent whatsoever or to grant its consent subject to such conditions as it thinks fit”.  Section 115(3) provides that the Council as landlord “may not grant its consent to a transfer or a sublease unless the transferee or sublessee is a voluntary organisation whose aims and objects are similar to those of the lessee”.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    There is a risk that CHS abandon their building.

7.14    Risk – Legislative– Council officers may be tasked with sourcing a willing buyer and Lessee for the property as CHS has indicated their desire to vacate the property.

7.14.1 Treatment: approve the lease assignment to alleviate this risk.

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

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.16    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Open up opportunity to other recreational users to utilise the built facilities.

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Potential continued use of the Horticultural Hall building for non-recreational activities not associated with Hagley Park or consistent with its classification as a recreation reserve.

·   CHS abandon their lease with Council left to find an alternative user and to ensure that any incoming lessee pay the value of the building to the outgoing lessee.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Canterbury Horticultural Society - Request to Assign Lease

40

b

Canterbury Cricket Trust - Request for Lease Assignment from Canterbury Horticultural Hall

41

c

Canterbury Horticultural Society - Evaluation of Significance

43

 

 

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

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

9.        Bells Creek Outfall Landscape Plan and Tree Removal

Reference:

16/1482963

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8071

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the proposed landscape plan and replacement of one street tree for the Richardson Terrace pump station outfall as part of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) flood mitigation works. This approval is under part 5, Parks and Reserves, of sub-part 1 of part D of the Council’s delegations register:

·   5.15: Trees on reserves, parks and roads: Community Boards have the power to "Determine to plant, maintain and remove trees on reserves, parks and roads under the control of the Council within the policy set by the Council".

·   5.16: Landscape plans: Community Boards have "Power to approve the location of, and construction of, or alteration or addition to, any structure or area, and the design of landscape plans for the same, on reserves, parks and roads, provided the design is within the policy and budget set by the Council".

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, and is in response to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee resolution to endorse (5 May 2016) and the Council resolution (CNCL/2016/00251) to grant approval for the design and construction of the Bells Creek Upstream Works.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the small number of adjacent affected residents, and the fact that the proposed landscaping would affect these properties in a positive manner by improving amenity in the area.   

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for works associated with the construction of the Richardson Terrace pump station outfall as a result of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme flood mitigation works.

2.         Approve the removal of one street tree to allow the Bells Creek flood mitigation works to be implemented.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan and tree removal (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the landscape plan and tree removal

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Facilitate reducing flood risk to the Bells Creek catchment

·     Improves the amenity of Christchurch Quay Reserve by extending the existing western wharf structure

·     Additional landscape planting in the reserve

·     Improved pedestrian access to the western wharf and interpretation board

·     Replacement of damaged interpretation board

·     Safety improvements to the existing western wharf

·     Opportunity to replace a tree in fair condition and improve tree cover and amenity in the long term

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of several shrubs due to the new outfall

·     Removal of one street tree

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The proposed works are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Richardson Terrace pump station tree removal and replacement

Richardson Terrace Outfall

5.2       The Bells Creek catchment drains into the Heathcote River. Following the Canterbury Earthquake sequence significant land damage was observed in the area.  Land at the downstream end of Bells Creek experienced uplift, whereas the upstream area typically settled by 200 mm to 300 mm. This has increased flooding in the Bells Creek catchment, and in particular substantially increased the number of floor levels at risk of flooding.

5.3       The Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) investigated options for flood mitigation in Bells Creek and recommended a package of works (Stage 1) to reduce flooding. Council approved the Stage 1 works in November 2015.

5.4       The Stage 1 works include a new pump station on Richardson Terrace to allow the Bells Creek catchment to drain during high tides and flood flows in the Heathcote River. The site of the pump station is shown in Figure 1.

5.5       As part of the pump station construction new outfalls are required as the risk of using the existing outfall was determined to be high and not provide sufficient resiliency.

5.6       This report concerns the landscape plan to mitigate the impacts of the outfall and ensure that it is incorporated into the existing environment, providing an opportunity to enhance the site of an important part of Christchurch’s history, the Christchurch Quay.

Tree Removals

5.7       To enable the construction of the new outfalls one street tree must be removed.

5.8       A tree assessment has been carried out within the project area to quantify the potential effects of the proposed works on street and park trees (refer Attachment A, tree report from Arbor Vitae Ltd, dated 21 December 2016). 

·   Based upon the project design there is one Street Tree that has been identified as requiring removal for the works.

5.9       The condition of the tree was evaluated using the Christchurch City Council tree assessment system.  At the time of the tree survey, the condition of the tree included the following:

·   One tree in Fair condition.

5.10    The overall condition of a tree is assessed using the criteria below:

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 

·   The score relates to the health and form of a tree.

·   Form includes the structural integrity (the ability to hold together under load) and the shape of the tree.

·   Health (vigour and vitality) is generally measured through branch growth increments, foliage colour/discolouration, bud size etc.

·   The overall condition rating for a tree is calculated by taking the worst score from either health or form to give you the overall assessment rating (e.g. if a tree scores good for health and poor for form then the condition rating will be poor overall for the tree).

6.   Option 1 - Approve the landscape plan and tree removal (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Richardson Terrace pump station outlets will be constructed to the south-west of the western wharf structure.

6.2       The need to incorporate three outfall pipes in to the river bank provides an opportunity to enhance the quality of the public space. The landscape concept is presented in Attachment B.

6.3       An artist’s impression of the proposed outlet structure, wharf extension and new planting is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Artists impression of Richardson Terrace pump station outfall

6.4       The concept builds on the existing landscape which contains two wharf structures telling the story of the Heathcote River as a transport corridor.

6.5       The concept proposes a new path for direct pedestrian access from Ferry Road.

6.6       The existing western wharf structure will be re-clad in new timber and have a new balustrade that will wrap down the stairs to a new lower level timber structure. This additional structure allows people closer access to the water, ability to launch small boats and provides a cover for the outfall pipes.

6.7       A new stacked recycled timber wall along the new timber deck will provide a place for people to sit and look out to the river.

6.8       The riparian edge will be replenished with new plants that are indigenous to the area.

6.9       The proposed planting will be composed of hardy native riparian planting to replenish the existing plants, help stabilise the bank and support the ecology of the river.

6.10    Drifts of low native species such as NZ Inkberry, NZ Flax and Toe Toe will be used on the upper bank and more water tolerant species such as Swamp Sedge and Wiwi will be used on the riparian edge of the lower bank.

6.11    Native specimen trees such as Matai and Ribbonwood have been proposed on the upper bank as shown in indicative locations on the plan. These species will help restore the original river bank vegetation profile.

Significance

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

6.13    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are provided in the Bells Creek Communications and Engagement Plan, and is based on informing key stakeholders.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.14    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

6.15    A communications update on the pump station work was sent to residents along Richardson and Clarendon Terraces in December 2016 (Attachment C). This also invited residents to a street meeting on 7th December 2016.

6.16    Approximately 10 residents attended the meeting. Residents were supportive of the pump station, and the concerns raised were primarily whether the pump station would make flooding worse in the Heathcote River. Council staff were able to reassure residents that this had been checked and the pump station will not noticeably increase water levels in the river.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.17    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including Council resolution CNCL/2015/00022.

Financial Implications

6.18    Cost of Implementation - There is no additional cost of implementation above the budget already included in the Annual Plan.

6.19    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be a minor increase in the cost of maintenance, particularly during the period of plant establishment.

6.20    Funding source - The funds are approved in the 2016/17 and 2017/18 Annual Plans.

Legal Implications

6.21    No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.22    No significant risks or mitigations identified.

Implementation

6.23    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval of the landscape plan.

6.24    Implementation timeframe – The works are schedule to take place during mid to late 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Facilitate reducing flood risk to the Bells Creek catchment

·   Improves the amenity of Christchurch Quay Reserve by extending the existing western wharf structure

·   Additional landscape planting in the reserve

·   Improved pedestrian access to the western wharf and interpretation board

·   Replacement of damaged interpretation board

·   Safety improvements to the existing western wharf

·   Opportunity to replace a tree in fair condition and improve tree cover and amenity in the long term

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of several shrubs due to the new outfall

·   Removal of one street tree

·   Disruption to the Heathcote River bank

7.   Option 2 - Decline the landscape plan and tree removal

Option Description

7.1       The landscape plan can be declined by the Community Board with no adverse effect on the flood mitigation project. The outfalls will still be constructed alongside the western wharf, but will not be hidden.

7.2       There is no alternative outfall location from the pump station, and if the tree removal is declined then a combined gravity/pressure outfall may need to be reconsidered. This option was rejected by the project team due to the following risks:

·   Increased amount of work on the existing outfall. This increases the risk of damage to the pipeline and increases overpumping risks.

·   Includes a complex discharge manifold which CCC/SCIRT have experienced problems with on other local projects (quality of construction and cost were concerns).

·   Risk of failure of the existing reinforced concrete outfall. Converting this pipeline to a combined outfall will increase the internal pressure by a couple of metres, and means that the entire Bells Creek system is dependent on a single outfall.

·   Difficulty with replacing the outfall in the future with no alternate outlet. This was seen by Operations staff as a significant risk.

·   Reliance on a single outfall for the Bells Creek flood protection scheme. In a worst case scenario the pump station would not be able to operate if the existing outfall has had a catastrophic failure such as a major leak or joint failure. (This is unlikely, and it is more likely that the failure would be gradual and able to be repaired through lining.) If there was a catastrophic failure then the following would likely occur:

·     The pipe would back up due to the restriction.

·     Overland flow paths would be initiated upstream, likely down Ferry Road as well as through some properties.

·     Upstream flooding would increase, though not significantly more than what would currently occur without the pump station.

7.3       Due to these risks it is recommended to remove the tree to allow for a separate outfall. If the tree removal is declined then the pump station delivery will be delayed.

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is medium which differs from section 2 of this report due to due to the higher risks associated with using a combined outfall.

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are provided in the Bells Creek Communications and Engagement Plan, and is based on informing key stakeholders.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.7       There is an interest in the Council’s ability to resolve flooding related issues in some sectors in the community.

7.8       Declining the tree removal may increase the risk of Council not meeting this objective.

7.9       The pump station delivery will also be delayed which is inconsistent with the expectations of the community.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.10    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, although with the risks and delays outlined above.

Financial Implications

7.11    Cost of Implementation – There will be a cost for redesign but likely overall lower cost due to not replacing and extending the wharf structure.

7.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No difference to Option 1.

7.13    Funding source – No difference to Option 1, but it may result in carry forwards to future years.

Legal Implications

7.14    No legal implications identified.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.15    The risks associated with a combined outfall (which would allow the tree to be retained) are described in Section 7.2.

7.16    The Risk Event is caused by only having a single outfall. The consequences of failure are described above.

7.17    Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Medium.

Implementation

7.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval and redesign and sponsor sign off.

7.19    Implementation timeframe – Delayed delivery by up to six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   The tree will be retained

·   Less disruption to the Heathcote River bank

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The key flood mitigation work in Bells Creek catchment will be delayed

·   Higher residual risk

·   Lower amenity value than Option 1

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Richardson Terrace Pump Station Outfall tree report

55

b

Richardson Terrace pump station outfall landscape concept plan

62

c

Richardson Terrace pump station communications update 30 November 2016

67

 

 

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

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Resources Engineer

Approved By

Timothy Joyce - Team Leader Operations Land Drainage

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

10.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Youth Development Fund Applications - Francesca Jane Beaton and Tei Henson Driver

Reference:

17/21676

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider two applications received for the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $8,000 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This staff generated report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from Francesca Jane Beaton and Tei Henson Driver.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Declines the application from Francesca Jane Beaton towards Hands-On at Otago.

2.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Tei Henson Driver for the UN Youth Global Development Tour.

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Francesca Jane Beaton

4.1       Francesca is 17 years old, lives in Redcliffs and attends Rangi Ruru Girls’ School. She has been selected to attend the Hands-On at Otago 2017 Programme in the Pharmacology and Toxicology project from 15 – 20 January 2017.

4.2       The Hands-On at Otago Programme is a highly competitive limited entry programme intended to provide high achieving senior secondary school students an opportunity to experience university life and hands-on experience in different fields of research. The pharmacology project that Francesca will be involved in will be looking at the effects of drugs on human systems as well as some of the impacts of chemicals in the environment.                 

4.3       Francesca achieved ‘excellent’ results for all her Year 12 subjects in 2016 except one, in which she ‘achieved with merit’.  She was awarded the 2016 Rangi Ruru Girls’ School Endeavour Award and was selected to attend both the 2016 Emerging Leaders’ Conference and the Model United Nations National Conference. During her time at Rangi Ruru, Francesca has achieved several other awards and accomplishments. Francesca is also on a 5 year academic scholarship that has enabled her to attend Rangi Ruru School. In 2012 she was awarded Dux of Redcliffs School.

4.4       Francesca has attained these achievements whilst overcoming her own challenges including health issues and earthquake damage to their home. The family has moved 11 times in the last 6 years, including emergency accommodation.

4.5       Francesca is passionate about science and the health of her community and environment and her future goal is to complete a Bachelor of Surgery and Medicine at Otago University and then specialise in Christchurch as an anaesthetist. Francesca hopes to make a positive impact to the health and wellbeing of the members of her local community.

4.6       Francesca has been fundraising for the programme by taking part in casual work opportunities. She has been granted $300 by the Sumner Ferrymead Foundation.

4.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Francesca to attend the Hands-On at Otago 2017 Programme in Dunedin:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Hands-On at Otago

675.00

Return airfares

306.82

                                                                                                 Total

$981.82

Amount requested from Community Board

$500

 

4.8       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.  Staff recommend a decline because this application does not meet the criteria of the fund.

5.   Applicant 2 – Tei Hanson Driver

5.1       Tei is 17 years old, lives in Addington and attends Christchurch Girls High School. She has been selected along with 21 other delegates to attend the United Nations (UN) Global Development Tour through UN Youth New Zealand from 11 January to 7 February 2017.

5.2       The Global Development Tour aims to take young New Zealanders to see the world through a future lens- as it could be in 2030 through meeting the global Sustainable Development Goals. The trip will connect young people to policy makers, businesses and NGOS working towards the Sustainable Development Goals and help them see the world from a different perspective and to think about New Zealand issues within the UN and how they can contribute to the achievement of the goals.

5.3       The delegation will go to Paris, Geneva, Brussels, Copenhagen, London and New York to visit places such as UNESCO, Red Cross, the UN Headquarters, the European Union Parliament and the School of Economics. The trip will culminate in the delegation representing New Zealand at the UN Winter Youth Assembly.

5.4       Tei has been involved in youth governance since 2014 when she joined UN Youth. She has also been a member of Youth Parliament working alongside Nicky Wagner and is on the executive of Christchurch Youth Council. Tei was elected as co-chairperson for the UN Youth this year and was voted onto the UN Canterbury Regional Council. She has also been actively involved with Youth Voice, being an advocate for youth mental health issues and youth civic participation.

5.5       Tei was involved in organising candidate events for last year’s local body elections for youth, including being the master of ceremony at one of the events.

5.6       Tei has also achieved academic excellence at school, was Captain of the Fencing team and Head Librarian at Christchurch Girls’ Highs School. She attained runner-up in 2016 for the Canterbury Zonta for Women in Community Service Award and was awarded Colours for Service at her school. She was also a member of the orchestra and choir.

5.7       Tei is passionate about youth participation in local governance and begins study at Canterbury University this year in Law, Politics and Spanish. Tei believes this tour will give her the opportunity to grow as a person, develop her networks further and enable her to continue working within her community in a sustainable way.

5.8       Tei has undertaken various fundraising activities including a Givealittle page, selling pasta with Pasta Vera and a movie night. At the time of the application, Tei had raised $774.20. Tei also has part-time jobs and is planning a SoYo Event in March.

5.9       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Tei Henson Driver:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Flights

3,416.00

Insurance

127.50

European transfers

281.62

Accommodation

829.76

City spending (food, transport and activities)

938.97

Conference fees

208.33

Admin (information sessions, planning meetings, Model UN meeting, etc.)

2,147.82

                                                                                                 Total

$7,950

Amount requested from Community Board

$500

 

1.1.  This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding. Staff recommend that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approves a grant of $500 for Tei Henson Driver for the UN Youth Global Development Tour.Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

11.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Youth Development Fund Application - Hayley May Hall, Isobel Judith Owens and Meg McInroe

Reference:

16/1415657

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider three applications received for the Board's 2015/16 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $8,000 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from Hayley Hall, Isobel Judith Owens, and Meg McInroe to attend a gymnastics development tour to the USA in February 2017.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

Approves a grant of $350 each from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Hayley Hall, Isobel Owens, and Meg McInroe towards a gymnastics development tour to the USA in February 2017.

 

4.   Applicants – Hayley Hall, Isobel Owens and Meg McInroe

 

4.1       Twelve gymnasts from the Christchurch School of Gymnastics are seeking support towards attending a development tour to USA in February 2017. Three of the contestants are from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area.

4.2       The squad will travel to Texas to train and compete at two international gymnastics competitions: the World Olympics Gymnastic Academy (WOGA) Classic in Dallas (17 – 19 February), followed by the Houston National Invitational in Galveston (24 – 26 February). The girls are all members of the senior training squads at Christchurch School of Gymnastics.  They range in age from 11-14 years and levels from Step 6 to Junior International. These competitions are two of the largest in the United States, attracting top gymnasts from the US and around the world.  The team will have the opportunity to train at different gyms while they are in Texas, experiencing different training conditions and environments. The girls train between 16 and 30 hours per week (depending on their level), and work hard to combine their training, school work, while still having time for family and friends.

4.3       Hayley May Hall is 12 years old from Hillsborough and is a year 7 student at Middleton Grange. This year Hayley competed in Step 8 and won the Canterbury Championships. She was placed 2nd at the New Zealand National Championships and received two apparatus placings on vault and beam. Hayley really enjoys gymnastics even though it is a lot of hard work and conditioning and takes up a lot of time.

4.4       Isobel Judith Owens is 14 years old from St Albans and is a year 9 student at Christchurch Girls High School. She has been doing gymnastics for seven years and this year she competed in Step 8, making the Canterbury team for Nationals. Isobel trains 30 hours a week and her goal is to compete for NZ at the Commonwealth Games and Olympics.  She is also aiming to get a scholarship to a US College where she can compete in gymnastics and get a degree at the same time.

4.5       Meg McInroe is 14 years old from St Albans and is a year 10 student at Christchurch Girls High School. She has been doing gymnastics for 10 years, trains for 23 hours a week and hopes to get into College Gymnastics in the future. Meg competed in Step 7 for Canterbury at the GymSports NZ National Championships where she won first place in the all-round competition. 

4.6       The gymnasts with the support of their parents and coaches have been fundraising towards the trip. Activities have included selling various food items, a quiz night and silent auction, and a movie screening. To date $7,300 has been raised with ongoing fundraising until they depart.

4.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for each contestant:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$2,155

Accommodation

$471

Transport

$300

Meals

$700

Competition entry fees

$300

Total

$3,926

 

4.8       This is the first time the applicants have applied for funding.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

12.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund Application - Holy Trinity Avonside Anglican and Linwood College

Reference:

17/24998

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00055946

Holy Trinity Avonside

Heritage Cemetery and Community Garden Maintenance

$5,000

00055961

Linwood College

Culture and Heritage Celebration

$1,500

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This staff generated report is to assist the Community Board to consider applications for funding from Holy Trinity Avonside and Linwood College.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $3,500 to Holy Trinity Avonside Anglican towards Heritage Cemetery and Community Garden Maintenance.

2.         Approves a grant of $1,300 to Linwood College towards Culture and Heritage Celebration.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$35,997

$24,600

$11,397

$6,597

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote - 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund Application- Holy Trinity Avonside - Decision Matrix - January 2016

79

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote - 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Linwood College - Decision Matrix - January 2017

80

 

 

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

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

13.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Application - Canterbury Music Education Trust

Reference:

16/1470275

Contact:

Diana Saxton

Diana.saxton@ccc.govt.nz

941 6628

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00055958

Canterbury Music Education Trust

The Jam

$500

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board consider an application for funding from the Canterbury Music Education Trust (CANMET) for a youth music event being held on 25 March 2017 at the New Brighton Pier.  This is a split application between the Coastal-Burwood (70%) and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote community board area.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $500 to Canterbury Music Education Trust towards ‘The Jam’ event in New Brighton, March 2017.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       At the time of writing, the balance of the Discretionary Response Fund is as detailed below.

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$35,997

$24,600

$11,397

$10,897

 

4.2       Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2016/17 DRF Linwood-Central-Heathcote CANMET Canterbury Music Education Trust Decision Matrix

83

 

 

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

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

14.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Meeting Schedule February - December 2017

Reference:

16/1491229

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the meeting schedule from 1 February to 31 December 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to allow the Board to adopt a meeting schedule from 1 February to 31 December 2017.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment against the Significance and Engagement Policy criteria.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Rescind the following Board meeting dates and times:

Wednesday 15 February

3pm

 

Monday 13 March 2017

10am

Wednesday 29 March

3pm

 

 

 

 

2.         Adopt the following meeting schedule from 1 February to 31 December 2017

Wednesday 15 February

10am

 

Wednesday 19 July

 10am

Monday 27 February

 3pm

 

Monday 31 July

 3pm

Wednesday 15 March

 10am

 

Wednesday 16 August

 10am

Monday 3 April

 3pm

 

Monday 4 September

 3pm

Wednesday 19 April

 10am

 

Wednesday 20 September

 10am

Monday 1 May

 3pm

 

Monday 2 October

 3pm

Wednesday 17 May

  10am

 

Wednesday 18 October

 10am

Monday 29 May

 3pm

 

Monday 6 November

 3pm

Wednesday 14 June

  10am

 

Wednesday 22 November

 10am

Monday 3 July

 3pm

 

Monday 4 December

 3pm

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The staff recommendation in this report, for the Board to adopt a meeting schedule through to December 2017, has been developed based on a number of factors:

·     The holding of two ordinary Board meetings in each calendar month;

·     Consideration of other commitments on the Council calendar, e.g. Council meetings;

·     Discussions with board members on times that would be most suitable to meet; and

·     A desire to avoid day/time clashes with other Community Board meetings.

4.2       It is suggested that Board meetings be held at 3pm on the first Monday and 10am on the third Wednesday of each calendar month with both meetings being full business meetings. 

4.3       It is intended that a seminar/workshop will be held on the third Monday of the month at 3.30pm. Seminars provide an opportunity for Board members and staff to have informal discussion on issues where no decisions are required.

4.4       It is proposed that the venues for Board meetings will be the Linwood Boardroom for one meeting per month; the other meeting to be held at community facilities within the Community Board area when possible/appropriate.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

15.    Community Board Chairpersons and Deputy Chairpersons 2017 Workshop

Reference:

17/24708

Contact:

Liz Beaven

Liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider approving attendance of the Board Chairperson and Deputy at the Community Boards Executive Committee (CBEC) workshop for Chairpersons and their Deputies in Christchurch on 25 February 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following an offer from CBEC to Christchurch Community Board Chairpersons and Deputies.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the attendance of Sally Buck and Jake McLellan at the Community Boards Executive Committee workshop for Chairpersons and their Deputies to be held in Christchurch on 25 February 2017 at a cost of $200 for both attendees to be met from the Board’s operational fund.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The purpose of the Community Boards Executive Committee workshop for Chairpersons and their Deputies is to provide guidance and advice on such topics as Codes of Conduct, chairing meetings, the new Community Board Guide, what makes a good board operate to its maximum effectiveness, how to resolve disputes within a board, understanding standing orders, relationships between boards and councils, legislative update, conflicts of interest and an update on policy issues impacting on the performance of boards.

4.2       Central to these workshops is the opportunity for participants to learn from each other and to have an open forum style which allows round-table discussion. CBEC has indicated its intention to expand networking between boards and see the workshop as the ideal opportunity for participants to make contacts and set up these networks to help in their job as a Chairperson or Deputy.

4.3       The workshop will run from 9.30am until 4.00pm at a cost of $100 per attendee with morning tea on arrival, lunch and afternoon tea provided.

4.4       The cost of $200 in total for attendance will be met from the Board’s training operational funding which has a current balance of $3,226.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

16.    Update to Community Board

Reference:

17/14462

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Outstanding Matters from Board Seminars, Board Area Bus Trip, and 12 December 2016 Board meeting

1.1       Mapping of Community Board Area Playgrounds – staff are currently working to have a seminar with the Board in February 2017 on playgrounds in the Community Board area.

1.2       Former Linwood Nursery Site Update – As part of the Board Briefing from the Parks Adviser, the Board was informed that plans to use the old Nursery site on Smith Street had not progressed as there is a requirement for the land to be totally sealed due to contaminants.  The Board was advised at the time that should they wish to turn the site into a car park and test for contaminants they would need to request funding for this through the Annual Plan process.  The cost would be approximately $500,000.

Staff have since found out that testing was done on site after the dismantling of the nursery and that the site had been restored for recreational use.  Staff are now working with the Parks team to find out what the possibilities are for using the site for car parking. 

1.3       Community Board Area Bus Tour – Staff have noted the following actions from the successful Board Area Bus Tour on 20 January 2016. 

Topic/Issue

Notes

Sydenham Master Plan – the Board requested a briefing on this.

Staff have arranged for a seminar to be held on Monday 13 February on this topic.

Affordable housing in Sydenham – the Board would like an update on this.

Staff are currently organising a briefing to be given at the next board meeting.

Brougham Village Land – the Board asked whether there could be a transitional project on Brougham Village site?

Staff are working to find out what the possibility for this is.

Doris Lusk Reserve – the Board heard about the ongoing issues of antisocial behaviour and littering on the park.

Staff have worked with an elected member who knows some of the people who have been using the park and is working to find a more appropriate venue for them to use for socialising and other solutions to issues they are facing.

Sydenham Preschool – the Board requested staff to find out what the current agreement is on use of the Ministry of Education building on the corner of Waltham School.

Staff are currently looking into this.

Buchan Park Land swap – the Board would like to find out more about the proposed plan to upgrade the park and the Sikh Temple.

Staff have arranged for a seminar to be held on Monday 13 February as part of the Sydenham Master Plan topic.

Linwood North/East Plan – the Board asked if there is an intention for a plan of this area.

The Linwood Village Master Plan is the only plan in the area.  The Board has granted $6,000 towards pre-engagement for a revitalisation plan in the Inner City East and Linwood Village area that may include part of this.

Stanmore Shops area- 60% haven’t returned – the Board asked what could be done to support the changing face of this area and is there a Stanmore Road Plan?

The Board was informed of the Linwood Village Plan.  It does not adequately cover the issues raised in terms of revitalising the area.  Staff will request a seminar with community groups on this.

State of the Linwood Park Pavilion – the Board asked if this could be tidied up as it compromises the ability of Linwood League to hold their home games.

Staff are working on getting this done.

 

2.   Board and Community Activities

2.1       Paperless Process – The Community Board will be the first Christchurch Community Board to go “paperless”.  Board members will be allocated Council devices after the meeting on 30 January 2016 to prepare for receiving all meeting reports, and appointments electronically.  Full training and ongoing support will be made available from end of January.  The first digital Board meeting will be 15 February 2016. 

2.2       Upcoming Events/Meetings

•          Community Board meeting –to be held on Wednesday 15 February 2017.

2.3       National Community Board Awards – the Community Board Awards are now open for submission.  Applications close on Friday 17 March 2017 with the awards being announced and presented at the Community Boards Conference on Friday 12 May 2017.  Further information on the awards is attached.

3.   Consultation Calendar

3.1       As at 13 January 2016 the following consultation is planned:

•          Detention Basin Project/Urban Forest – 521 Ferry Road –consultation planned for 23 January to 15 February 2017.  The report is expected for the Community Board meeting on 13 March 2017.

4.   Funding Update

4.1       The unallocated balance of the community funds are as follows:

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - $11,397.

Youth Development Scheme – $8,000.

Light Bulb Moment Fund – $5,000.

 

4.2       Details of the allocated amounts are attached. (Attachment B).

5.   Council Activities and Decisions

5.1       Lancaster Park - At the Council’s 15 December 2016 meeting the Council in relation to the future of Lancaster Park resolved:

That the Council:

1.         Note

a.     Lancaster Park cannot be recommissioned as an operating venue for $50 million

b.     The cost of recommissioning Lancaster Park as a venue capable of hosting tier 1 World Rugby test matches is in the order of $255 - $275 million.

c.      The Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 places limitations on the uses of Lancaster Park.

2.         a.     Instruct staff to commence immediately to work with Otakaro and Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) to develop a business case for the alternative site, including options for a multi-use facility; and report back to the Council as soon as possible.

b.     Request that early engagement with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and stakeholders is part of the development of the business case.

3.         Instruct

a.     Staff to prepare a report by March 2017 on options for demolition of the existing structures and options for the future use of Lancaster Park, the process for engagement and timeframes for next steps.

b.     Request that early engagement with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is part of the development of the next steps business case and options for Lancaster Park.

4.         Request Vbase to report back to Council on the possibility of reuse or recycling of chattels and fittings remaining within the buildings.

6.   Community Governance Team update

6.1       Risingholme Monthly Update – There is currently no new update to provide on this since the status report provided to the Board in November 2017 and through the seminar in December 2017.      

6.2       Community Pride Garden Awards 2017- The Community Pride Garden Awards 2017 will be held on Friday 31 March 2017.  The aim of the awards is to foster community pride within the ward and are judged by the Christchurch Beautifying Association.  Certificates are usually awarded to recipients by board members. 

6.3       Community Events- planning is underway for the local community events supported by the Board.  The LYFE crew and representatives will be coming to the Board to give an update prior to the event.

6.4       Woolston Community Facility- a joint working group of community representatives, elected members and staff is being established for this project.  Alexandra Davids, Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Yani Johanson will be representing the Community Board on the working group.

6.5       Linwood Ave Summer Pool- This has proved to be very popular with residents, particularly on sunny days.  Swimming lessons are also being provided and attendance at these has been high.

 

7.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the report.

2.         Decide whether they would like to enter the Community Board Best Practice Awards 2017 and the project to submit.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Community Boards Awards 2017 Criteria

93

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary Response Funding 2016/17

94

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Carly Waddleton - Community and Democracy Policy Advisor

Approved By

Shupayi Mpunga - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

30 January 2017

 

 

17.  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.

 

 

 

18.  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.