Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Thursday 9 March 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

3 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 5

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 5

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

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

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

5.       Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council....................................................... 7

6.       Haeata Community Campus School Speed Zone................................................................. 31

7.       Marshland School Speed Zone.............................................................................................. 39

8.       Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Provision of Waste Water and Horizontal Infrastructure Update.................................................................................................................................................. 47

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

9.       Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council.............................. 69

10.     Roads of National Significance Downstream Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points...................................................................................................................... 103

11.     Yaldhurst Model School speed zone................................................................................... 119

12.     Future of the Old Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Building.......................... 127

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

13.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council................................... 137

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council................................. 167

15.     Petition: To Establish School Speed Zones with Flashing 40km/hr Signage outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools.................................................................... 211

Papanui-Innes Community Board

16.     Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council........................................................ 319

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

17.     Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council.............................................. 349

18.     Somerfield School speed zone............................................................................................. 379

19.     Proposal for a Port Hills Recovery Multidisciplinary Task Force ..................................... 387

Banks Peninsula Community Board

20.     Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council..................................................... 391

STAFF REPORTS

21.     Delegations for Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Programme.............................................. 427

22.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 434  

 

 

 


Council

09 March 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 and 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.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

A period of up to 30 minutes is available for people to speak for up to five minutes on any issue that is not the subject of a separate hearings process.

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

A period of up to 30 minutes for deputations that have made application and been approved by the Chairperson.

3.2.1      Mic O’Donnell, Pam Richardson and John Meeker will speak regarding the Little River – Big Ideas Project referenced in item 20  - Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council.

4.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.  

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

5.        Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/156419

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in February.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendation

That the Council receive the Community Board report.

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held meetings during December and February and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   5 December 2016

·   10 February 2017

·   20 February 2017

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Haeata Community Campus School Speed Zone

4.2       Marshland School Speed Zone

4.3       Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Provision of Waste Water and Horizontal Infrastructure Update

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of these reports will be considered by the Council at its meeting on 9 March 2017.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

       5.1     Community Facilities    

5.1.1   New Brighton Library – after a six month closure for earthquake repairs the popular library adjoining the pier reopened to the public on 13 February 2017. 

View from the newly repaired New Brighton Library

5.1.2   QEII Recreation & Sport Centre – work is underway with the centre expected to open in mid-2018.

5.1.3   Haeata Community Campus - opened to students for the first time on 3 February 2017. The new school in Aranui is the merger of four schools now closed – Aranui High, Aranui Primary, Avondale Primary and Wainoni School.

5.1.4   Wainoni Park Sports fields – work began 7 February 2017 on the construction of one new sand based football field (No. 1 field), as well as new irrigation for both football fields.  The fields are expected to re-open for use in July 2017.

5.1.5   Repairs to the New Brighton Pier began on 30 January 2017.  The Pier will remain open during the repairs, most of which will happen below sea level. 

5.1.6   Options are being considered for the “Bunker” – a building located on Wainoni Park which is currently used by A-Town Boxing Gym.  The building was damaged by fire last year and hasn’t been able to be fully used since then.

5.1.7   A partnership management agreement is being developed with the Aranui Community Trust Incorporated Society (ACTIS) to enable the Aranui Wainoni Community Centre to be community managed. 

5.2   Events report back

5.2.1   The Coastal-Burwood ward bus tour was planned for 16 February 2017 however was rescheduled due to the fires. A new date is being identified and once again the invite will be extended to the Mayor and Elected Members. 

5.2.2   I Love New Brighton 2017 was held on Monday 6 February at Thomson Park.  The weather was exceptional and there was a positive turn out from the community estimated at between 5,000 - 6,000 people.  The public surveys are being collated and a debrief meeting organised with the planning group.

5.2.3   The Kathmandu Coast to Coast Multisport Race 2017 finished up at the New Brighton Pier on February 11 2017 with a great turn out of spectators.

5.2.4   Parklands @ Play 2017 was held on Sunday 19 February 2017 at Parklands Reserve.  The weather for this event was cooler and did impact on the number of people attending estimated at 1,000 people. 

5.2.5   The Southern Regional Surf Lifesaving Championships were held at New Brighton Beach on the 25th and 26th February 2017. 

5.2.6   Children’s Day was held on 5 march 2017 in the Red Zone.

 

6     Significant Community Issues

6.1     Levels of Service – Parks and other maintenance

6.1.1   Status

Members of the Board and staff met with staff from the parks team to discuss the issues of litter and maintenance standards.

6.1.2   Action Required

A three month trial of “Smart Bins” is underway at the Whale Pool in New Brighton.

A one month trial of sweeping the New Brighton mall and library frontage early Monday morning and early Friday morning each week is underway.

A landscape plan is being developed to address the road landscapes that are not planted.

 

6.2    Natural Hazards

6.2.1   Status

There have been concerns raised within the community of flood modelling and coastal hazards.

6.2.2   Action Required

Opportunities for the community to be involved where possible.

The Board and Community Governance staff are reviewing Community Response Plans as part of the development of the Community Board Plan.

6.3    Red Zone

6.3.1   Status

A call for nominations to be involved in Regenerate reference and advisory groups.

6.3.2   Action Required

This has been shared with networks. Information can be found on Regenerate Christchurch’s website.

6.3.3   Timeframe

Call for nominations closes 12 March 2017. 

 

7     Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1      The Coastal-Burwood Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan therefore there is nothing to report at this time.

 

8     Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

8.1      South Brighton Boardwalk

The Board was advised by staff that the boardwalk, which was damaged in the earthquakes, was required to be removed for health and safety reasons.  The Board is keen to work with staff to identify solutions to enable the boardwalk to be replaced.

The Board resolved at its 5 December 2016 meeting that it:

1.              Agrees to the staff proposal for the removal of the boardwalk for health and safety reasons.

2.         Requests that the amount of $353,000 allocated in the current financial year to the boardwalk remain.

3.              Asks staff to return to the Board with high level consideration of options for the replacement of the boardwalk in the same position. 

A target date for item 3 has been set as 29 March 2017 as staff expect an engineering report with repair options to be received by then.

8.2      Roading and footpath repairs in areas of the Burwood and Coastal wards

The Board is concerned about some of the repairs relating to road carriageways, footpaths and roundabouts within the Community Board area.


 

8.3      The Coastal-Burwood Board area bus tour

This will be rescheduled and the invite extended to the Mayor and Councillors.  The Board appreciated the interest in attending the tour by the Mayor, Councillors Chen, Templeton Johansen.

8.4      Upcoming events within the Community Board Area 

8.4.1   The 2017 New Zealand Surf Life Saving Championships – seeing almost 1,500 athletes compete over four days of competition will be held at New Brighton Beach between 16 and 19 March 2017. 

8.4.2   Ray White New Brighton Duke Festival of Surfing is on from 17 - 26 March 2017.

8.4.3   Support is being provided to Canterbury Music Education Trust regarding The Jam New Brighton youth music event scheduled for Saturday 25 March at New Brighton Amphitheatre.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Confirmed Minutes - 5 December 2016

11

b

Coastal-Burwood Community Board Confirmed Minutes - 10 February 2017

17

c

Coastal-Burwood Community Board 20 February 2017 Minutes

25

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 10 February 2017

 

6.        Haeata Community Campus School Speed Zone

Reference:

17/140834

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

 

 

1.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Revoke the existing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Breezes Road located between Pages Road and Wainoni Road and that this revocation shall come into force on completion of the removal of existing infrastructure.

2.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Shortland Street (school zone) and modify the 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Breezes Road, as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

3.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Shortland Street, commencing at a point 170 metres north west of its intersection with Pages Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 465 metres.

b.         Breezes Road, commencing at a point 275 metres north west of its intersection with Pages Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 320 metres.

4.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendations 1, 2 and 3 above, the above mentioned new variable speed limits shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Haeata Community Campus School Speed Zone

32

 

No.

Title

Page

a

TG130701 Haeata Community Campus School speed zone

38

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Haeata Community Campus School Speed Zone

Reference:

16/1480554

Contact:

Mark Millar

Mark.Millar@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to endorse the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Shortland Street and modify the school speed zone on Breezes Road at Haeata Community Campus, and to recommend to the Council that it approves the new variable speed limits and include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to the Haeata Community Campus community requests and this site becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

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 the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Revoke the existing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Breezes Road located between Pages Road and Wainoni Road and that this revocation shall come into force on completion of the removal of existing infrastructure.

2.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Shortland Street (school zone) and modify the 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Breezes Road, as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

3.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Shortland Street, commencing at a point 170 metres north west of its intersection with Pages Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 465 metres.

b.         Breezes Road, commencing at a point 275 metres north west of its intersection with Pages Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 320 metres.

4.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendations 1, 2 and 3 above, the above mentioned new variable speed limits shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install a school speed zone on Shortland Street and modify the school speed zone on Breezes Road for Haeata Community Campus (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reduces the operational speed on Shortland Street, therefore improves the safety in the area during the peak school travel times.

·     It maintains the reduced operational vehicle speed on Breezes Road and maintains the safety in the area during the peak school travel times for a more appropriate length of road.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

·     Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Ministry of Education is restructuring a number of schools in Christchurch City. As part of this restructure, four existing schools are merging into one school, Haeata Community Campus, at the site of the existing Aranui High School.

5.2       The four schools that are merging are: Avondale Primary, Aranui Primary, Wainoni Primary, and Aranui High Schools.

5.3       There is an existing school speed zone on Breezes Road which serves the Aranui High School and Aranui Primary School sites.

5.4       The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.5       The Haeata Community Campus school community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications resulting for children on their way to and from school.

Proposal

5.6       It is proposed to modify the school speed zone on Breezes Road to better align with the combined Haeata Community Campus. Through consultation Council staff were informed that St James School, which is rebuilding their Rowan Avenue site, will be temporarily using the old Aranui Primary School site from the beginning of 2016. As a result of this staff are proposing to defer the modification of the Breezes Road length of school speed zone for Haeata Community Campus until the old Aranui Primary School site is no longer required for St James School.

5.7       The existing school speed zone on Breezes Road will be operated until the modified zone length is installed. The new variable speed limit zone length shall only come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

5.8       The preferred option is that on Shortland Street, electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the school zone and static (non-electronic) 'School Zone Ends' signs will be placed at the end of the zone. A back to back static sign is proposed be placed on McHaffies Place.

5.9       On Breezes Road the electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the new school zone and static (non-electronic) 'School Zone Ends' signs will be placed at the end of the new zone. Old electronic school speed zone signs are proposed to be removed or replaced with newer technology. A back to back static sign is proposed be replaced on Hampshire Street with the updated zone operating times.

 

6.   Option 1 - Install a school speed zone on Shortland Street and modify the school speed zone on Breezes Road for Haeata Community Campus (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install a school speed zone on Shortland Street and modify the existing school speed zone on Breezes Road for Haeata Community Campus as shown on Attachment A.

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 low.

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       Engagement was carried out in the Aranui area around Haeata Community Campus from 23 November to 14 December 2016.

6.6       520 copies were hand delivered to people who live in the immediate area, 177 copies were sent to absentee owners and 40 copies were sent to stakeholders.

6.7       There was no feedback that directly related to this proposal.

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 - $62,000

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the Council maintenance budget.

6.11    Funding source – Safe Routes to School Budget.

Legal Implications

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 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    None identified.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise the school speed zone.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Installed by June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reduces the operational vehicle speed on Shortland Street, therefore improves the safety in the area during the peak school travel times.

·   It maintains the reduced operational vehicle speed on Breezes Road and maintains the safety in the area during the peak school travel times for a more appropriate length of road.

·   The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

·   Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

·   Maintains the length of school speed zone on Breezes Road while St James School temporarily uses the old Aranui Primary School site.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

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 low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community regarding safety of children travelling to and from school.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users on Shortland Street. On Breezes Road if the existing school speed zone remains the full length it may encourage non-compliance with the reduced speed as children will not be present over the full zone length. Research has shown that the school speed zones are only effective if there are children present when the variable electronic speed signs are operating.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source – Safe Routes to School budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it remains high with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety concerns of the school and of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

TG130701 Haeata Community Campus School speed zone

 

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 10 February 2017

 

7.        Marshland School Speed Zone

Reference:

17/140877

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

 

 

1.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Te Korari Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Te Korari Street, commencing at a point 85 metres north of its intersection with Prestons Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 310 metres.

3.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendations 1 and 2 above, the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

4.         Approve, in pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Marshland School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols on Te Korari Street, located at a point more or less 43 metres north of its intersection with Te Aika Street.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Marshland School Speed Zone

40

 

No.

Title

Page

a

TG130501 - Marshland School Speed Zone - Te Korari Street

45

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Marshland School Speed Zone

Reference:

16/1392448

Contact:

Mark Millar

Mark Millar@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to:

1.1.1   Endorse the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Te Korari Street at Marshland School, and to recommend to the Council that it approves the new variable speed limit and include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

1.1.2   Recommend to Council that it approves the school patrol for Marshland School on Te Korari Street in accordance with the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, and in accordance with the Land Transport Rule 54002, Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to the Marshland School community requests and this site becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are 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 project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Te Korari Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Te Korari Street, commencing at a point 85 metres north of its intersection with Prestons Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 310 metres.

3.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendations 1 and 2 above, the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

4.         Approve, in pursuance of the powers vested in it by Section 8.3(1) of the Land Transport Rule- Traffic Control Devices 2004 (Rule 54002), and pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Local Government Act 1974 and 2002, the Christchurch City Council hereby authorises the head teacher of Marshland School to appoint appropriately trained persons to act as school patrols on Te Korari Street, located at a point more or less 43 metres north of its intersection with Te Aika Street.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install school speed zone and school patrol for Marshland School (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

·     The school patrol provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Te Korari Street.

·     Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

·     Short delay in traffic flow as vehicles have to stop to allow children to cross the road.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.2       Marshland School moved from the Prestons Road site to the Te Korari Street site in 2016. Marshland School had a school speed zone and school patrol at their Prestons Road site. The Te Korari Street site was assessed using the approved prioritisation process. The outcome of this assessment was that it was in the top three highest priority sites for a school speed zone.

5.3       The Marshland School community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications resulting for children on their way to and from school.

Proposal

5.4       On Te Korari Street, electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the school zone and static (non-electronic) 'School Zone Ends' signs will be placed at the end of the zone. Back to back static signs are proposed to be placed on Korowai Street, Te Aika Street and Te Kereme Street.

5.5       The proposed school patrol for Marshland School will be in the form of a ‘kea crossing’. This consists of swing out stop signs, no zebra crossing, but additional temporary fluorescent orange flags located five metres in advance of the crossing point. When the signs and patrol are not present the crossing point reverts to a section of road where pedestrians may cross only if there is a safe gap to do so.

6.   Option 1 - Install school speed zone and school patrol for Marshland School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the school speed zone and school patrol as shown on Attachment A.

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 low.

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       Engagement was carried out in the Prestons subdivision area in Marshlands from 7 November to 28 November 2016.

6.6       250 copies were hand delivered to people who live in the immediate area, 61 were sent to absentee owners and 30 were sent to stakeholders.

6.7       During this time two people provided feedback. One person was concerned about signage outside her lounge window. Further discussions has resolved this concern. One person supported the proposal but asked for further speed measures on Te Korari Street. One person provided information in regards to the placement of signage in relation to Orion Assets.

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 - $38,000

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.11    Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

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 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    None identified.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise school speed zone and the school patrol operation. Training of the school patrollers and staff by the Police Community Education Officer is required.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Installed by June 2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·   The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

·   The school patrol provides supervision and priority for children of all school ages, when needing to cross Te Korari Street.

·   Cost effective solution to providing road safety for school children.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

·   Short delay in traffic flow as vehicles have to stop to allow children to cross the road.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

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 low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it remains high with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety concerns of the school and that of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

TG130501 - Marshland School Speed Zone - Te Korari Street

 

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 10 February 2017

 

8.        Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Provision of Waste Water and Horizontal Infrastructure Update

Reference:

17/141059

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

 

 

1.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Consideration

 

Staff addressed the concerns raised by Jan Burney and Gary Sharlick in their deputation. 

Staff undertook to finalise agreements with each affected resident. 

Staff also undertook to respond in detail to the written deputation from Jan Burney and Gary Sharlick.

 

2.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the provision of Pressure Wastewater horizontal infrastructure in the Brooklands and Avon Residential Red Zone(RRZ) area

2.         Notes that staff will continue discussions with the remaining residents who have not provided a formal submission on their preferred waste water system, including two properties where due to their isolated location (at least 1 km away from the nearest service) the project team will need to further investigate the best solution for these properties

3.         Delegates to the Senior Technician Water and Waste Planner the power to decide on the best solution for a wastewater system for the two properties, and delegates to the Senior Technician Water and Waste Planner and the Property Unit to negotiate and agree any easements that may be required for those two properties and the other properties to be provided with a pressure wastewater system.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Provision of Waste Water and Horizontal Infrastructure Update

49

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Brooklands RRZ consultation leaflet

65

b

RRZ consultation leaflet

67

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Residential Red Zone (RRZ) Provision of Waste Water and Horizontal Infrastructure Update

Reference:

16/1287546

Contact:

Mike Bourke

Mike.bourke@ccc.govt.nz

941 8364

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1   The purpose of this report is to seek the approval of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board for its recommendation to Council to approve the provision of Pressure Wastewater horizontal infrastructure in the Brooklands and Avon Residential Red Zones (RRZ).

1.2   To provide an update on the status of Water Supply, Storm Water and Roads within the Brooklands and Avon Residential Red Zones.

Origin of Report

1.3                   This report to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board was generated following a report to Council in December 2015:

·   Seeking approval to undertake consultation with affected residents on proposed Waste Water options.

·   Recommending that for the roads to be taken out of service and closed to vehicles that temporary barriers are replaced with semi-permanent barriers to prevent vehicle access and deter dumping that is occurring while still maintaining pedestrians and service vehicles access.

 

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by using the engagement significance matrix.  Staff have considered the significance of the recommendation to be made by the Community Board and the decision by the Council.  Their assessment is that the matter is of medium significance for the following reasons:

2.2.1   There is already a high level of community interest in pressure wastewater installations across the city.  There are significant environmental, social and cost savings that will result from the installation of a pressure wastewater system.

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends to Council that:

1.         It approve the provision of Pressure Wastewater horizontal infrastructure in the Brooklands and Avon Residential Red Zone(RRZ) area

2.         It notes that staff  will continue discussions with the remaining residents who have not provided a formal submission on their preferred waste water system, including two properties where due to their isolated location (at least 1 km away from the nearest service) the project team will need to further investigate the best solution for these properties

3.         It delegates to the Senior Technician Water and Waste Planner the power to decide on the best solution for a wastewater system for the two properties, and delegates to the Senior Technician Water and Waste Planner and the Property Unit to negotiate and agree any easements that may be required for those two properties and the other properties to be provided with a pressure wastewater system.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Wastewater Collection

·     Level of Service: 11.0.1 Provide wastewater collection in a safe, convenient and efficient manner (customer satisfaction)

4.2   The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Provision of Pressure Waste Water System (preferred)

·     Option 2 – Enhanced Gravity Waste Water System

·     Option 3 - Septic Tank and Composting Waste Water Systems

·     Option 4 - Status Quo (Post Earthquakes) –  Continue using Suction Trucks

4.3   Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The most cost effective operational option to provide service to these properties

·     This method is consistent with the service provided to the neighbouring "Green Zone" areas in Brooklands and Bexley

·     Reduces any health risk to residents and visitors to the area

·     Provides the most resilient system for properties that are likely to remain for a considerable time

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Capital investment required for installation

·     Investment in the Red Zone without knowing future land use

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Waste Water Services - Residential Red Zone

5.1       The Council is continuing to provide services to a number of privately owned and occupied properties in the RRZ.

5.2       Current waste water systems are constructed using brittle earthenware, unreinforced concrete pipes and some PVC which are badly damaged.

5.3       The current method of servicing these properties is through the use of a suction tanker emptying manholes or individual tanks which is inefficient, and result in overflows of raw sewage to the environment.

5.4       The overflows result from high levels of infiltration and fluctuating flows from properties that mean tank and manhole cleanout schedules need to be constantly adjusted, resulting in some tanks and manholes over topping between cleanouts.

5.5       These overflows are creating public health issues, not only for residents but visitors to the respective areas.

5.6       This method is costly and inefficient taking large amounts of staff resources to continue this operation. The cost of providing wastewater treatment services in this current method is $356,256 per year in the Coastal – Burwood Wards.

5.7       City wide this operational cost is $495,504 per year.

5.8       Under section 130(2) of the Local Government Act (LGA), the Council must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under that part of the LGA.

5.9       These ongoing operational costs have been shared between the Crown and the Christchurch City Council, under the Cost Share Agreement where the Crown funds sixty percent of valid three waters horizontal infrastructure costs under the earthquake rebuild programme. Financially, the current method is costing the Crown and Council a large sum each month.

5.10    The preferred solution has been submitted to the Crown for co-funding under the Crown Cost Share agreement however this has been deemed ineligible by the Crown.  Staff will continue to argue the case with the Crown but in the interim recommend fully funding the solution from Council’s existing wastewater renewal and operating budgets.

5.11    There are currently 44 occupied properties in the RRZ flat land with 24 of them in the Coastal – Burwood Ward.

 

 

Below are updates on the other horizontal infrastructure in the Red Zone to provide clarification on their status as noted in the December 2015 Council report.

Storm Water Services - RRZ

5.12    No changes are being undertaken on storm water until decisions are made on the Red Zone land

5.13    Current storm water costs in the Coastal – Burwood Red Zone areas relate to maintaining existing pumping stations and keeping networks functioning that pass through the red zone and discharge to the Avon River. In 2015 this operation cost $14,000.

Water Supply Services - RRZ

5.14    The current supply system is meeting demand in these areas, however there will be a capital investment of $89,000 to bury the existing above ground water lines. This is for security to protect them from damage and for health reasons.

5.15    These lines currently sit above ground and were originally laid as a temporary solution to provide a potable supply. 

Road Network Services - RRZ

5.16    The December 2015 Council report discussed the need to install more solid temporary road barriers across roads to prevent access to unpopulated Red Zone areas.

5.17    Road infrastructure costs in the RRZ relate to the number of temporary traffic management measures in place and keeping the key through routes open with road related repairs. Some of the road related repairs include storm water as the roads now flood more often. In 2014 roading costs were $300,000 prior to residents leaving.

5.18    New barriers have been installed closing off non-essential road access which has reduced operational costs by 90% as there are no residents and due to less illegal dumping of rubbish.

5.19    Roads that are in full use which are mainly arterial roads are still being fully maintained this is costing more than prior to the earthquakes to keep these roads open. There are some roads with service levels reduced where there are still residents that are being maintained to a lesser service than previously. Future decisions on the roads is awaiting the Regeneration Plan.

Community Consultation

5.20    Prior to the formal consultation period commencing, the project team along with a number of elected members from the Coastal-Burwood Community Board met with the Brooklands residents on 26 October 2016 to discuss possible options for the wastewater in this area.  At this meeting residents were advised of the upcoming consultation and it was verbally agreed that;

5.21    Two community representatives would approve the consultation material before it was distributed to the public and would work with the project team to assist in arranging further one on one meetings during the consultation period, for those property owners in Brooklands who had further questions.

5.22    Consultation on a proposed wastewater system for residents who remain in the residential red zone in Brooklands and those outside of Brooklands in the Coastal-Burwood ward of the city was undertaken from 4 November 2016 to 25 November 2016.  The submission form asked submitters to indicate whether they supported the project team preferred option of a pressure wastewater system by either ticking “Yes – generally support the pressure wastewater option” or no – do not generally support the pressure wastewater option”.  There was also an opportunity on the submission form to write any further comments about a wastewater option for properties in the residential red zone.

5.23    Two members of the project team attended three on site meetings with local Brooklands residents along with a community representative from Brooklands to answer questions about the system and discuss where they would prefer the tank and alarm panel to be located on their property and what happens next.

5.24    Approximately 20 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to remaining residential red zone residents in Brooklands by a community representative.  This project was also posted on the Councils ‘Have Your Say’ website page, refer attachment A.

5.25    An amended version of the consultation leaflet (which excluded the enhanced gravity option, as this option was not cost effective due to properties not being close to each other) was also distributed to the remaining Avon residential red zone property owners scattered across the Coastal-Burwood ward at the same time as the face to face visits to these property owners took place, refer attachment B.  This also included a feedback form for some properties where pressure wastewater was the project team preferred option for the property.

5.26    Approximately 5 consultation leaflets were left with property owners remaining in the Avon residential red zone in the Coastal-Burwood ward who were visited individually to discuss a wastewater and water supply solution for them.  Of these properties there were two properties where due to their isolated location (that is at least 1 km away from the nearest service) the project team will need to further investigate the best solution which has yet to be worked through. In the interim sucker trucks will continue remove their wastewater, so there would be no loss of service and staff would also investigate burying their water supply pipelines (currently located above ground).

5.27    At the close of the consultation, 14 submissions were received with 11 (79 per cent) in support of a pressure wastewater system, two (14 per cent) not in support and one submitter who did not indicate a preference (7 percent).

5.28    These submissions received can be broken down further, as per the table below:

Property location in RRZ

Yes – support PWW

No – not support PWW

Not indicated

Total

Brooklands

9 (82%)

1 (9%)

1 (9%)

11

St Martins (not RRZ)

 

1 (100%)

 

1

Bexley

1 (100%)

 

 

1

Dallington

1 (100%)

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

14

 

5.29    All submissions have been provided to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board members and are publicly available on the Council project information page (without names and addresses) electronically at:

http://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/HYS/2016/November/Proposed-Wastewater-Solution-RRZ-submissions.pdf

5.30    There are approximately eight properties in Brooklands who have yet to indicate their view on a pressure wastewater system, who have not yet submitted a completed submission form at the close of the consultation on 25 November 2016. These are not shown in the above table.

5.31    There are approximately five property owners outside of Brooklands who remain in the Avon residential red zone within the Coastal-Burwood ward who have yet to formally indicate their view on a pressure wastewater system.  However with two of these properties a pressure wastewater system may not be feasible for them due to their isolated location.  The remaining three property owners have had conversations with members of the project team and at this stage have not indicated verbally that they would not support the installation of a pressure wastewater system.

5.32    Staff from the project team would like to continue discussions with the two isolated residents to determine the most suitable and cost efficient solution For the Council in order to continue servicing these properties.  In looking at the various options, the Council must consider what system will provide good quality local infrastructure, in a way that is most cost effective for households and businesses.  Good quality infrastructure that is efficient, effective; and appropriate to present and future circumstances.

 

6.   Option 1 - Provision of Pressure Waste Water System (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       A pressure wastewater system is an individual tank and pump system which is located in an underground tank and transfers wastewater from the house to the Council’s pipes in the street under pressure.

6.2       The only part of the system that is visible at the surface is the lid of the tank and the alarm panel that is mounted on an exterior wall.  The tank connects the private lateral (the wastewater pipe that runs from the house to the pipes in the main street) and works best if it is located near the house.  The pressure wastewater system also has a boundary kit (that looks similar to a toby box). 

 

6.3       This system works well in areas that have experienced some lateral spread and/or liquefaction, and some changes in land levels and operates best if located close to the house by reducing the length of gravity lateral line.

6.4       The most cost effective temporary option to provide service to these properties in the short term is to install a low pressure sewer tank and pump on each property (provided Council can get the owner’s agreement for this, through either an easement, or if s181 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies, by consent or following the Schedule 12 process under that section). 

6.5       This will provide a temporary (recoverable) and non-expandable service for each property that reduces the current service issues at lower cost.  This system has already been used in other situations in the city.

6.6       This method of managing waste water is consistent with the service provided to the neighbouring Green Zone areas in Brooklands. Other locations that also use pressure wastewater systems are Spencerville and Green Zone areas of Bexley. 

6.7       Pressure wastewater has been used extensively in the rebuild (approximately 2000 units), and is now a system of choice in new subdivisions where ground conditions make gravity pipe options difficult.

Significance

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

6.9       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are outlined in this report within the consultation and community views and preferences section of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.10    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

6.11    The remaining RRZ property owners in Brooklands and outside of this area in the Avon RRZ within the Coastal-Burwood ward are specifically affected by this option due to the project team preference to install the tanks on private property. 

6.12    For those who generally support the installation of a pressure wastewater (PWW) system a brief summary of their comments are below.

Property location in RRZ

Summary of comments

Brooklands

·    Comments around additional storage and feasibility of adding empty section to the system in the future.

·    Support system and can confirm recent CCTV inspection of laterals is positive.

·    Support the pressure based on the assurances given from CCC and my understanding of points/issues noted by CCC  in meetings and discussion are correct and true

·    Repairing of our wastewater and infrastructure is a major part of our community recovery - it has been a long six years - with no recovery - let it be without further stress and dispute.

·    Very happy with proposal.

·    Would like it to happen as quickly as possible.

6.13 For those who do not support the installation of a PWW system a brief summary of their comments are below.

Property location in RRZ

Summary of comments

Brooklands

·    Would like CCC to investigate whether existing septic tank system could be utilised instead.  If this is not feasible then would support PWW.

St Martins (not in RRZ)

·    Not good use of Council spending, remaining residents should be encouraged to move to better ground.

6.14 For those who did not indicate a preference a summary of their comments are below.

Property location in RRZ

Summary of comments

Brooklands

·    Not planning on remaining and unsure of how long it will take to vacate.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.15    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in particular the responsibility under the Local Government Act and the Waste water Strategy 2012, with providing a wastewater services to all properties.

Financial Implications

6.16    Cost of Implementation – A one off investment in this system within the Coastal – Burwood Wards (Brooklands and parts of the Avon River catchment) is $538,000

6.17    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Annual Operational cost is $10,416

6.18    Funding source:

6.18.1 Capital – existing Wastewater Renewal budgets

6.18.2 Operational – existing Wastewater operating budgets

Legal Implications

6.19    Under section 130 (2) of the LGA the Council must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under that part of the LGA.  In section 124 of the LGA a water service is defined as meaning water supply and wastewater services. Wastewater services are defined as meaning sewage treatment and disposal of sewage and storm water drainage. The Council is not proposing to close down water services to the remaining occupied properties but to provide a more appropriate and secure service given the circumstances.  This optimal approach still provides services but reflects the fact that there are fewer properties spread out over remote locations and therefore the use of a low pressure system for wastewater can be provided that will still adequately service the properties.

6.20    In order to place Council infrastructure related to the pressure wastewater system on private property (which is preferred as it is generally lower cost for the Council), the situation either needs to be one which falls under s181 of the Local Government Act 2002 (it is ‘necessary’ for that infrastructure to be on the private property; it cannot be reasonably accommodated on Council land) or the Council must enter into an easement agreement with the land owner.  (The use of the owner’s electricity supply for the system falls outside s181 and would be agreed/consented to separately.)

6.21    If the landowner does not want the Council pressure wastewater infrastructure on their land, then the Council will have to consider whether it can place the infrastructure on public land (road/footpath/reserve).  Alternatively, if s181 applies, it can go through the process in Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 2002 to require the land owner to have the infrastructure on their land (which may be appropriate if it is impossible physically to site the infrastructure on public land or the cost of putting the infrastructure on public land is much higher than on private property). 

6.22    Following the District Court decision on the Schedule 12 objections by Mr Bailey and Mr Berie (in 2014) the Council cannot rely on better resilience for the landowner in deciding whether it is ‘necessary’ to put the works on private property under s181.  However, this is an advantage for an owner who gives consent.  The private lateral they are responsible for is much shorter and so is less costly and easier to repair if there is another damaging event.

6.23    Council staff have delegation from Council to make decisions under s181 but if any easements are required to be negotiated with landowners the relevant staff will need a delegation for this.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.24    That the RRZ property will one day not require a wastewater service and the tank and pump will need to be removed.

6.25    Risk: That property owners may change their minds about remaining in the RRZ and sell the property to the Government. 

6.25.1 If that occurs the installed equipment can be removed and used elsewhere.

6.25.2 Residual risk rating: very low.

Implementation

6.26    Implementation dependencies:

6.26.1 Gaining Community Board and Council approval to proceed to construction.

6.27    Implementation timeframe – March to June 2017

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.28    The advantages of this option include:

·   The most cost effective operational option to provide service to these properties

·   This method is consistent with the service provided to the neighbouring Green Zone areas in Brooklands

·   Reduces any health risk to residents and visitors to the area

·   System is resilient. [see comment below on enhanced gravity]

·   System can be recovered and reused if properties no longer require the wastewater service.

·   Provides 24 hours of storage and longer in a power outage situation

·   Lower construction and maintenance costs as the pipes are laid at shallow depths

6.29    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Requires power to operate. A future seismic event may disrupt this.

·   Preferred placement of some of the infrastructure for the system is on private property which requires additional agreement/arrangements with property owners.

7.   Option 2 – Enhanced Gravity Waste Water System

Option Description

7.1       An enhanced gravity system is similar to a traditional gravity system except that the pipes are laid at a steeper slope, and at shallower depth.  Laying the pipes shallower makes them easier to install, and easier to fix in the future. 

7.2       More lift stations (to lift wastewater up the network) and pump stations (act as a booster in the network) also require installation to help move the wastewater through the pipes in the street to the wastewater treatment plant.

7.3       An enhanced gravity wastewater system generally works well in areas where the ground has had minimal lateral spread or liquefaction.

 

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are outlined in this report within the consultation and community views and preferences section of this report.

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       During the consultation period there were no submitters who indicated they would support this option.  There is a general understanding in the community that ground conditions would not make this a suitable option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies in particular the responsibility under the Local Government Act and the Waste water Strategy 2012, with providing a wastewater services to all properties.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – A one off investment in this system within the Coastal – Burwood Wards (Brooklands and parts of the Avon River catchment) is $7,431,000.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual Operational cost is $267,750 (includes depreciation). This is relatively high due but is due to the low number of residents compared to a normal residential area in the city.

7.11    Funding source:

7.11.1 Capital - existing Wastewater Renewal budgets

7.11.2 Operational – existing Wastewater operating budgets

 

Legal Implications

7.12    Under section 130 (2) of the LGA the Council must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under that part of the LGA.  In section 124 of the LGA a water service is defined as meaning water supply and wastewater services. Wastewater services are defined as meaning sewage treatment and disposal of sewage and storm water drainage. The Council is not proposing to close down water services to the remaining occupied properties but to provide a more appropriate and secure service given the circumstances. 

7.13    There is no infrastructure required to be on private property so there are no consents/other agreements required from property owners.

Risks and Mitigations   

Risk: Potential damage to a new network caused by future seismic events and land movement This could result in complete failure of the waste water network

7.13.1 Treatment: Best option is to install and more resilient waste water system as recommended in Option 1

7.13.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Very High

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies:

7.14.1 Gaining Community Board and Council approval to proceed to construction.

7.14.2 Source funding to undertake installation

7.14.3 This option would require further design investigations on pipe depth, and on the lift and pump stations

7.15    Implementation timeframe – With the additional design required this would delay construction work by a minimum of six to eight months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Simplest operation system

·   No infrastructure on private property

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Very high capital construction cost ($7m+ just for Brooklands RRZ area)

·   Disruptive to the community during construction with required method

·   Expensive to repair if damaged in a future seismic event

·   Requires additional pump stations to help move the waste

8.   Option 3 – Septic Tank and Composting Waste Water Systems

Option Description

8.1       If property owner decides not to connect to the system that the Council ultimately provides then they have an option at their cost (this was mentioned in the consultation leaflet for septic but not compost) to consider either a Septic Tank or Composting Toilet solution.  If this option was provided by the Council in order to meet its obligations under s130 of the Local Government Act 2002, then the Council would need to own and maintain the systems.

8.2       Both of these options may have difficulty in being granted a Resource Consent for the field discharge line due to the high water table. The compost toilet option would also require extensive modifications to the property as the toilet needs to have a five foot height clearance above the composting chamber

Septic Tank

8.3       A septic tank is a primary treatment system that treats wastewater by separating the solids and liquids.  Effluent then flows out of the septic tank to a land-application disposal area, which sometimes has to be a raised mound where groundwater levels are high, which then filters through the soil.

8.4       This system is used in rural locations where there is sufficient land available, as the land disposal area needs at be large depending on soil porosity and ground water level. 

8.5       Would require the disposal on private property only as unable to place disposal field on legal road or gain approval to dispose on Crown Land and space will be limited.

8.6       Consent is required from Environment Canterbury for land disposal of the treated wastewater and this may be difficult to achieve given the limited space and the high ground water levels.

Compost Toilet

8.7       A composting toilet is a type of dry toilet that uses an aerobic (with oxygen) processing system to treat human waste, by composting or managed aerobic decomposition. 

8.8       These toilets generally use little to no water and may be used as an alternative to flush toilets

8.9       This type of toilet is able to deal with human waste, but does not have the ability to deal with grey water from the kitchen sink, shower, washing machine etc.  It may therefore also require a septic tank to deal with the grey water.

8.10    The toilet level needs to be higher than the composting plant which may result in modifications to the house / or bathroom.

Significance

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

8.12    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are outlined in this report within the consultation and community views and preferences section of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.14    During the consultation period there was only one submitter who indicated they would support the septic tank option.  However that was only if the existing septic tank on the property could be utilised.  If this septic tank was not able to be used (due to consenting constraints), then they would be supportive of the pressure wastewater system instead.

8.15    No submitters indicated they would support a composting toilet option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.16    Septic Tank and Composting Option: This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

8.16.1 Reason for inconsistency – Not covered under the Wastewater Strategy 2012 as Council does not normally provide septic tanks as a wastewater option for private properties in a residential area.

Financial Implications

8.17    Septic Tank: Cost of Implementation – A one off investment in this system is for the Coastal – Burwood Wards (Brooklands and parts of the Avon River catchment) is $549,500

8.17.1 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual Operational cost is $6,919

8.17.2 Funding source – Operational Earthquake Response budget.

8.18    Compost Toilet: Cost of Implementation – A one off investment in this system is for the Coastal – Burwood Wards (Brooklands and parts of the Avon River catchment) is $750,000

8.18.1 Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $4,000

8.19    Funding source:

8.19.1 Capital – existing Wastewater Renewal budgets

8.19.2 Operational – existing Wastewater operating budgets

Legal Implications

8.20    Under section 130 (2) of the LGA the Council must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under that part of the LGA.  The Council could only meet this obligation with this option if it was going to fund and maintain a septic tank or composting toilet system.

8.21    Either a septic tank or composting toilet would require the Council to have its infrastructure on private property, requiring an easement or other agreement with the owner (it seems unlikely the Council could rely on s181 of the Local Government Act 2002 with this option.

Risks and Mitigations   

High water table and “Grey” waste water disposal for both options

8.22    Risk: There is uncertainty of gaining Resource Consent approval for the “Grey” water disposal field caused by the high water table.  This could result in no consent approval making both of these options non-viable

8.23    Risk: Composting toilets may require modifications to the house for this system to operate. This has not been investigated to determine the extent of modifications required for any of the properties due the time and cost involved to undertake these investigations.

8.23.1 Treatment: Best option is to install and more resilient waste water system as recommended in Option 1 that doesn’t rely on disposing “Grey” waste water to ground or modifications to any residential property.

8.23.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Very High

Implementation

8.24    Implementation dependencies:

8.24.1 Gaining Community Board and Council approval to proceed to construction.

8.24.2 Source funding to undertake installation.

8.24.3 Gaining Resource Consent approval from Environment Canterbury (Ecan) for “Grey” waste water disposal.

8.24.4 Gaining Building Consent approvals for Composting toilet option.

8.24.5 Gaining legal agreement with individual property owners for any required modifications and access to property’s for installation.

8.25    Implementation timeframe – Six months to a year depending on timeframes for gaining all require consents and agreements with property owners.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.26    The advantages of this option include:

·   Low technology solution

·   Generally use little to no water for Composting toilet and may be used as an alternative to flush toilets

8.27    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Significantly higher cost than the preferred option

·   Likely to be very difficult to consent given high groundwater level.

·   Compost Toilet level needs to be raised for this system to operate. This will likely involve modifications within the house to make this work

·   Requires Council infrastructure on private property which requires additional agreement/arrangements with property owners.

9.   Option 4 – Status Quo (Post Earthquakes) –  Continue using Suction Trucks

Option Description

9.1       This is not considered a long term viable option due to the following reasons

9.1.1   Health risk from raw sewage spills

9.1.2   High operational cost

9.1.3   High labour and machinery use

9.1.4   Does not align with Council policy’s or best practice for waste water management

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are outlined in this report within the consultation and community views and preferences section of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.4       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

9.5       During the consultation period there were no submitters who indicated they would support this option.  Verbally affected residents have been consistently clear that they would like to see the suction trucks discontinued in the area, due to the noise, smell and disruption they cause.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.6.1   Reason for inconsistency – This is not best practice for Waste Water management and is not a financially viable option. Is it not consider a long term method in the Waste water Strategy 2012

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation - One off investment in this system is for the Coastal – Burwood Wards (Brooklands and parts of the Avon River catchment) is $49,500.

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Annual Operational cost is $356,256. (City Wide this is costing $495,292 annually).

9.9   Funding source –

9.9.1   Capital – existing Wastewater Renewal budgets

9.9.2   Operational – existing Wastewater operating budgets

Legal Implications

9.10    Under section 130 (2) of the LGA the Council must continue to provide water services and maintain its capacity to meet its obligations under that part of the LGA.  In section 124 of the LGA a water service is defined as meaning water supply and wastewater services. Wastewater services are defined as meaning sewage treatment and disposal of sewage and storm water drainage. The Council is not proposing to close down water services to the remaining occupied properties but to provide a more appropriate and secure service given the circumstances.

Risks and Mitigations    

9.11    Health risks and environment damage.

9.12    Risk: Overflows resulting from high levels of infiltration and fluctuating flows from properties resulting in some tanks and manholes over topping between cleanouts.

9.12.1 Treatment: Continually adjusting cleanout schedules to meet demand.

9.12.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Very High

Implementation

9.13    Implementation dependencies - High use of resources - staff and machinery.

9.14    Implementation timeframe – This method is currently in progress and ongoing on a daily basis.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Low one off investment in upgrade costs

·   No infrastructure on private property

9.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   High operational costs

·   High health risk to the public and the environment

·   High use of resources – staff and machinery

·   Was only meant as a temporary solution and is not sustainable long term

·   Not supported by the community

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Brooklands RRZ consultation leaflet

 

b 

RRZ consultation leaflet

 

 

 

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

Mike Bourke - Senior Technician Water and Waste Planning

Steven Gray - Project Manager

Tara King - Senior Engagement Advisor

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

9.        Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/156728

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-6231

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in February 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings during December 2016 and February 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   Monday 12 December 2016

·   Monday 13 February 2017

·   Monday 27 February 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Roads of National Significance Downstream Safety Improvement – Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points – 13 February 2017

4.2       Yaldhurst Model School Speed Zones – 27 February 2017

4.3       Future of the Old Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Building – 27 February 2017

The Board’s consideration and recommendations of the above reports should be considered by the Council at its meeting of Thursday 9 March 2017.

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

5.1       Abberley Park Playground Upgrade

At the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board meeting on 13 February 2017, the Board received a deputation from the Friends of Abberley Park regarding the planned upgrade to the playground in the park.  This project had already undertaken community consultation and had been approved by the previous Shirley/Papanui Community Board in 2016.  However, members of Friends of Abberley Park wished to express their concern regarding the footprint of the playground and placement of some of the proposed new equipment.  Board members and Council staff have now met on-site with the group and are suggesting some minor changes to the positioning of some of the items of play equipment.  These changes will be brought to the Board for consideration at their meeting on 13 March 2017 and if the minor changes are approved, will not require further community consultation.

5.2       Avonhead Park - Wigram Lions Barbeque Area

The Wigram Lions approached the Board in 2016 with their desire to undertake a legacy project to acknowledge the Lions 100 year worldwide anniversary.  They wished to donate a park barbeque and shelter at Avonhead Park beside the tennis court and sports pavilion.  Staff worked with the Wigram Lions to develop a concept plan which went out for community consultation.  As a result of concerns raised by local residents and groups through the consultation process, particularly around the proximity to Avonhead Park Cemetery, the Board decided not to go ahead with the project at Avonhead Park.  Staff are now working with the Wigram Lions to look at possible alternative sites.

5.2       Bishopdale Library and Community Centre - new build

The new building is well underway with an expected opening date of August 2017.  There is wide interest in the community, with queries regarding bookings for the community hall space already being received.  Businesses in the mall are looking forward to the opening and view the facility as an anchor for the revitalisation of the south end of Bishopdale Mall.  The Community Board visited the building site as part of its bus tour on 30 January 2017 and were hosted by Hawkins the contractor responsible for the build.

   

5.3       Sawyers Arms Road Signalised Pedestrian Crossing

At the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board meeting on 13 February 2017 the Board considered a report regarding the installation of a signalised pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road to address safety issues for pedestrians, particularly school children from Cotswold Intermediate, Emmanuel Christian, Casebrook Intermediate and the Kindercare Learning Centre, needing to cross the road.  The Board approved for the lights to be installed but have requested that Council consider removing the proposed signals at Cotswold Avenue from the Long Term Plan with the associated funds be reallocated to other related projects.

5.4       Community Events Report Back

Carols @ The Park - The inaugural Carols @ The Park event was held at Crosbie Park on 18 December 2016.  The event was a partnership between seven local churches and the Community Board.  The event was extremely well attended by approximately 400 local residents, with many families bringing a picnic to enjoy at the event. Event management was provided by Council staff who will now guide the organisers towards a self-sufficient and sustainable event for the community at Christmas each year.

                          

            

Bishopdale Skate Jam - This event took place on Saturday 28 January 2017 at Bishopdale Park.  The event is delivered in partnership with the Community Board and the ‘Skate Skool’ and is aimed at encouraging a targeted community of interest, children and young people to 'have a go' at skating.  Free gear hire and coaching from experienced skaters was provided.  Great weather helped approximately 150 people attend the event, which also included a free sausage sizzle sponsored by Hellers.      

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Park/Reserve/Berm Maintenance

There has been an increase in complaints from residents regarding the untidy mowing (leaving longer grass on edges of parks and playing areas), infrequent mowing resulting in long, unsightly berms and the increase of weeds and litter in planted 'garden' berms.

Staff have contacted pavement maintenance team regarding the seeming lack of berm maintenance and are working with the unit relevant to address any complaints.

In regards to park maintenance the following information was received from staff:

"The Council made a recent decision to stop the use of Glyphosate as herbicide control used in our parks.  Council is currently undertaking trial use of organic herbicides as an alternative across the city.  This has resulted to date in some target species not being effectively controlled, resulting in poor presentation to plant borders in many cases.  Plans to implement a multi-pronged approach such as more infill of plants and additional mulch application for plant borders, along with chemical application, should address the current weed situation.  A tender will be called for in coming weeks with implementation a short period after.  In the interim, one-off locations can be looked into where appropriate, such as Jellie Park being a high profile site for public. Council will attend to this site shortly."

6.2       Annual Plan Priorities:

6.2.1   Regeneration of Bishopdale Mall - This initiative has been tasked to Development Christchurch to investigate options and the Board has expressed their interest in ensuring their involvement in this key priority for Bishopdale. Staff are working with Development Christchurch and the Board will be briefed in May 2017.

6.2.2   Breens Road/Harewood Road intersection traffic lights - Local residents continue to express safety concerns regarding the Breens Road/Harewood Road intersection and their desire to see traffic lights installed.  A recent public meeting was held on-site by the ward councillor with over 60 people in attendance.  This project is in the Long Term Plan as part of the 2020/22 Wings to Wheels Major Cycle Route, however the Community Board are keen to see this prioritised earlier and included as an annual plan priority.

6.2.3   Condition of local waterways, particularly Waimairi Stream and Wai-iti Stream – Concerns raised by the community regarding low flow rates in local streams and the problem of flows being hampered by tree litter and sediment often causing related problems of flooding or increase in mosquitoes.  Staff have progressed all queries to relevant units for resolution of individual complaints. Discussions are underway regarding possibility in working in partnership with Environment Canterbury and its ‘Next Steps’ programme to improve outcomes. A public meeting hosted by technical experts is being investigated for April 2017.

6.2.4   Styx Mill Predator-free Fencing - This project is included in the Long Term Plan and would require one-off funding (capex) to complete the project. The Board will be visiting Styx Mill Reserve as a group in March 2017 to familiarise themselves with the area and ensure the project is meeting the expectations of the community and key stakeholders.

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board has yet to complete its 2017-19 Community Board Plan.  Quarterly reporting on this plan is expected to begin in April 2017.

 

8.   Community Board Significance Matters of Interest

8.1       Future of the old Bishopdale Library and Community Centre Building

            Significant interest from the community and Bishopdale businesses around the future of the old Bishopdale Library and Community Centre.  This building was deemed uneconomical to repair and a replacement Library and Community Centre is underway on the adjacent site. Staff from the Council’s property team brought a report to the Community Board on the 27th of February 2017 with the Board’s recommendation that the Council:

a.         Approves the demolition of the old Bishopdale Library and Community building.

b.         Grants delegated authority to the Manager Capital Delivery Community to do all things necessary at his sole discretion to undertake and complete the demolition.

c.         Requests that staff in conjunction with the Community Board explore whether there are alternative uses for the land that would fit within the purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 and report back on all of the options to seek a resolution as to its future use.

8.2      Mona Vale Gatehouse

Staff and external consultants have assessed options for uses of the Gatehouse at Mona Vale   which could offer a more ‘public’ use of the building, or enhance visitor experience opportunities. All have concluded that the best outcome for the Gatehouse, and of least risk to Council, is the option to retain the building as a residential dwelling.

 

At the Community Board meeting on Monday 27 February 2017, staff from Council’s Programme Management – Heritage team briefed the Board regarding the options for usage of Mona Vale Gatehouse and recommended that Mona Vale Gatehouse be retained as a residential dwelling, but that consideration be given to looking at a residential use which extends beyond a standard residential tenancy. Such a tenancy agreement could enhance the visitor experience or have community benefits by seeking expressions of interest for occupation by:

·    A writer, historian or artist in residence

·    A botanist/botanical specialist in residence

·    A tenancy agreement which requires a specified number of ‘open days’ a year, including an open event during Council’s annual Heritage Week

The Board endorsed staff’s recommendation to Council;

 

·    That Mona Vale Gatehouse be retained as a residential dwelling

·    That any residential tenancy be one which includes a number of ‘open days’ a year, by appointment during heritage week to allow for public access to the dwelling

·    That interpretation adjacent to the dwelling be used to provide information about the history of the dwelling, including its interior, thereby enhancing the ‘visitor experience opportunities’.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 12 December 2016 Minutes

74

b

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Minutes - 13 February 2017

83

c

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Minutes - 27 February 2017

95

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Maryanne Lomax - Community Development Advisor

Kay Rabe - Governance Support Officer

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board  – 13 February 2017

 

10.    Roads of National Significance Downstream Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points

Reference:

17/150591

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-6231

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

3.1       It is recommended that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a.    Approve all traffic controls on Sawyers Arms Road commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres be revoked.

 

b.    Approve the lane marking changes on Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

c.     Approve the removal of the central island on Sawyers Arms Road located at a point 61 metres south east of the intersection with Cotswold Avenue, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

d.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres be revoked.

 

e.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions  on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 153 metres be revoked.

 

f.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres.

 

g.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 92 metres.

 

h.    Approve that a bus stop be created on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 92 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

i.      Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 106 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 47 metres.

 

j.     Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road,  commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 155 metres be revoked.

k.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.

 

l.      Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

m.   Approve that a bus stop be created on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 19 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

n.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 33 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 122metres.

 

o.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

 

3.1.       It is recommended that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommend that the Council make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a.      Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of south eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 155 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 199 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

 

b.     Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of north westbound bicycles only, be established on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 153 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 230 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

 

c.      Approve that a signalised pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and  8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Sawyers Arms Road, located at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue as detailed in Figure 1.

 

 

 

 

 

2.  Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Board Consideration

David Cartwright moved, seconded by Raf Manji, that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board approve Option 2 (do nothing) contained in the report.

On being put to the meeting, the motion was declared lost.

Aaron Keown and Jamie Gough foreshadowed the following amended motion, should the previous motion be lost.

Part C

1.      The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board support the installation of the crossing given the community support for its installation, as per the resolutions below from 3.1.

2.      Require staff to remove the potential Cotswold signals from the Long Term Plan and reallocate funds to other related projects.  

3.1       That the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a.    Approve all traffic controls on Sawyers Arms Road commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres be revoked.

 

b.    Approve the lane marking changes on Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

c.     Approve the removal of the central island on Sawyers Arms Road located at a point 61 metres south east of the intersection with Cotswold Avenue, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

d.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres be revoked.

 

e.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions  on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 153 metres be revoked.

 

f.     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres.

 

g.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 92 metres.

 

h.    Approve that a bus stop be created on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 92 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

i.      Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 106 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 47 metres.

 

j.     Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road,  commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 155 metres be revoked.

 

k.    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.

 

l.      Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

m.   Approve that a bus stop be created on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 19 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

n.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 33 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres.

 

o.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

 

The amendment motion was put to the meeting and declared carried and when put to the meeting as the substantive motion, was declared carried.

Aaron Keown/Jamie Gough                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

3.  Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Decided FWHB/2017/00001

Part A

That the Council make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a.      Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of south eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 155 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 199 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

b.     Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of north westbound bicycles only, be established on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 153 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 230 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

c.      Approve that a signalised pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and  8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Sawyers Arms Road, located at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue as detailed in Figure 1, provided staff remove the potential Cotswold signals from the Long Term plan and reallocate funds to other related projects.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Roads of National Significance Downstream Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points

108

 

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Roads of National Significance Downstream Safety Improvements: Sawyers Arms Pedestrian Crossing Points

Reference:

16/1466306

Contact:

Andy Richards

andy.richards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8805

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board to:

1.1.1   Approve those parts of the attached scheme plan and those traffic controls, for which the Board has delegated authority, for the installation of a signalised pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road.

1.1.2   Recommend that the Council approve those parts of the attached scheme plan and those traffic controls, for which the Council has authority, for the installation of a signalised pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board following the consultation process. The Board was previously advised of the project at a seminar held on
29 August 2016 (Fendalton-Waimairi Community Board) and 31 August 2016 (Shirley-Papanui Community Board).

1.3       The report includes a review of:  

1.3.1   The preferred option to upgrade the pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road to a signalised pedestrian crossing.

1.4       The consultation responses to the preferred option to upgrade the pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road to a signalised pedestrian crossing.

1.5       This report was originally presented to the Board on Monday 12 December 2016.  The Board resolved that the report lie on the table to the next meeting on 13 February 2017 to enable staff to clarify the budget for the project and to brief the Board with regard to the changed to the traffic corridors and the impact of these changes on the proposed pedestrian crossing in the future.  The Board was briefed fully on Monday 7 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 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.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

3.1       It is recommended that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a)    Approve all traffic controls on Sawyers Arms Road commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres be revoked.

 

b)    Approve the lane marking changes on Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 38 metres south east of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 246 metres, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

c)    Approve the removal of the central island on Sawyers Arms Road located at a point 61 metres south east of it intersection with Cotswold Avenue, as detailed in Figure 1.

 

d)    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres be revoked.

 

e)    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions  on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 153 metres be revoked.

 

f)     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 67 metres.

 

g)    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 92 metres.

 

h)    Approve that a bus stop be created on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 92 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

i)     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 106 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue, and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 47 metres.

 

j)     Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road,  commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 155 metres be revoked.

k)    Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres be revoked.

 

l)     Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

m)  Approve that a bus stop be created on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 19 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

 

n)    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 33 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 122metres.

 

o)    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 38 metres.

 

3.1.       It is recommended that the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommend that council make the following resolutions relying on its powers under the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008 and Part 21 of the Local Government Act 1974:

 

a)     Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of south eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north east side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 155 metres north west of its intersection with Glasnevin Drive and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 199 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

 

b)     Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of north westbound bicycles only, be established on the south west side of Sawyers Arms Road, commencing at a point 153 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 230 metres, as detailed in Figure 1. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles.

 

c)      Approve that a signalised pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and  8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Sawyers Arms Road, located at a point 61 metres south east of its intersection with Cotswold Avenue as detailed in Figure 1.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This project is part of the RONS (Roads of National Significance) Downstream Safety Improvements Programme. NZTA’s RONS project along Johns Road from The Groynes to Sawyers Arms Road (currently in construction) has significantly affected some of the State Highway 1 (SH1) intersections and will contribute to the transport demand on Sawyers Arms Road increasing.  Safety reviews commissioned by Council of the Sawyers Arms Road Corridor have recommended that the existing pedestrian crossing facility adjacent to the Papanui Club be upgraded to a signalised pedestrian crossing.:

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Signalised pedestrian crossing without kerb build out (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do-nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Sawyers Arms Road by providing a safe crossing facility.

·     Improved safety for cyclists as cycle lanes de-conflict:

-      Stopped vehicles and cyclists at the signalised pedestrian crossing.

-      Turning vehicles and cyclists at Glasnevin Drive and Cotswold Avenue.

·     The painted flush median will allow west-bound traffic space to wait to turn into the Papanui Club.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Relocation of west-bound bus stop.

·     Loss of up to three car parks due to relocation of west-bound bus stop.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Sawyers Arms Road is located to the northwest of the Christchurch Central City.  It is located within the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board. 

5.2       Sawyers Arms Road between Cotswolds Avenue and Glasnevin Drive is classified as Major Arterial (Urban) under the current City Plan and runs in a northwest-southeast direction

5.3       There is an existing pedestrian crossing facility (refuge island mid-block) which is located between Cotswolds Avenue and Glasnevin Drive.  There are no stopping restrictions on both sides of Sawyers Arms Road at either end of the pedestrian refuge. 

5.4       There are part-time no stopping restrictions on Sawyers Arms Road in the vicinity of the Emmanuel Christian School (north of Cotswolds Avenue).  The no stopping restriction operates during school start and finished time.

Objectives

5.5       The objective of this project is to focus on improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and speed management measures by upgrading the existing pedestrian refuge to a signalised pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Papanui Club and Emmanuel Christian School.

6.   Option 1 - Signalised pedestrian crossing without kerb build out (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed traffic signal layout is shown in Figure 1 (below).  The features of the layout are listed below:

·     Replace the existing pedestrian refuge with traffic signal controlled crossing.

·     Typical cross section at the crossing is 1.8metre wide kerbside cycle lane, 3.3 metre wide traffic lane, 1.94 to 2 metre wide flush median, 3.3 metre wide traffic lane, 1.8 metre wide kerbside cycle lane.

·     Cycle lane on both sides of Sawyers Arms Road between Cotswold Avenue and Glasnevin Drive and across the intersections with Cotswold Avenue and Glasnevin Drive and continue some distance passed the intersection. 

·     Green surfacing across the intersections, at the entrance and exit to the Papanui Club and where the cycle lane transition back onto traffic lane.

·     Tactile pavers at the crossing. New cutdowns at the crossing if required.

·     Retained the existing bus stop on the north side and relocate the bus stop on the south side, east of the signalised pedestrian crossing.  The bus stop will be marked to standard bus stop marking as per CCC bus stop guideline.

·     Flush median on Sawyers Arms Road in the vicinity of the entrance to the Papanui Club to provide safe waiting area for right turning traffic into the Papanui Club.

·     Loss of three parking space parking due to the relocation of the bus stop on the south side and the extension of cycle lane passed the Glasnevin Drive.

·     Overhead mast arm with back to back signal display on the north side.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community consultation on the Sawyers Arms Road (Glasnevin Drive to Cotswold Avenue) proposed safety improvements was undertaken from Monday 10 October to Monday 31 October 2016.

6.6       A total of 800 leaflets were hand delivered to properties between Gardiners Road, Claridges Road, Highsted Road and Cardome Street/Fairford Street. The leaflet was also sent to 114 key stakeholders and 60 absentee owners.

·    Additional leaflets were made available at BP Sawyers Arms Road, Reality Bites café, and the Papanui Club.

·    Cotswold School and Emmanuel Christian School also received hard copies to distribute to parents.

6.7       Members of the project team visited 295 and 297 Sawyers Arms Road who would be directly affected by the proposed relocation of the bus stop from the south side of Sawyers Arms Road to outside these properties. A submission has been received from both properties.

6.8       During the course of the engagement, Council received 79 submissions. 63 respondents were in support of the proposed safety improvements and 16 respondents did not support the proposal.

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

·    General support of the proposal to improve safety for school children, pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Support the installation of cycle lanes.

·    Agreement with the relocation of the bus stop on the south side of Sawyers Arms Road.

6.10    During the consultation, the following concerns and suggestions were raised (Project Team responses below in italics):

·    The safety improvements are not necessary because:

-      Residents were consulted in 2007 and 2009 on matters around traffic management in this area.

This project is a pro-active initiative in anticipation of expected increased traffic volumes on Sawyers Arms Road. Safety reviews of Sawyers Arms Road have recommended that the crossing point adjacent to the Papanui Club be upgraded to a signalised crossing point. This will also provide a safe crossing point for children attending the nearby schools.

-      There is not enough foot traffic to warrant the crossings being installed.

And

-      Preference for a zebra crossing and have it controlled by school patrol at school times.

-      The volumes of pedestrians crossing here, particularly during school times, mean that a pedestrian refuge is no longer suitable. Pedestrian and traffic volumes at this location do not suit a zebra crossing. The signalised crossing will be an on-demand facility which will only operate when the button is pressed and the sensor is activated.

-      Reinstate the safety island that was outside Emmanuel School and has since been removed.

A school patrol would not be appropriate given the traffic flows and the high demand in this location, where a number of children can be part of a walking school bus during the summer. A school patrol will also only benefit people crossing during school times, whereas the signalised crossing will help throughout the day.

·    The bus stops are not in suitable locations. The bus stop on the south side of Sawyers Arms Road should be left in its current location. The bus stop on the north side of Sawyers Arms Road restricts visibility for vehicles exiting Glasnevin Drive.

And

·    Accessibility and visibility concerns for access into and out of Glasnevin Drive due to the location of the bus stops and congestion from vehicles stopping for the signalised pedestrian crossing on Sawyers Arms Road.

The bus stops are placed to accommodate the surrounding residential area, schools and local amenities (in this instance the Papanui Club).

On average, two buses per hour use this bus stop. While it will impede on visibility, this will only be for a short amount of time. Vehicles using Glasnevin Drive should wait until visibility is clear to join Sawyers Arms Road. A review of the pedestrian crossing and its impact in terms of delay has been undertaken which shows there will be minimal delay to vehicles at this crossing. This review has shown that with a high pedestrian demand there will be a maximum of one to two vehicles queuing at the lights.

·    Congestion will be created by the signalised pedestrian crossing and vehicles entering and exiting the Papanui Club.

A review of the pedestrian crossing and its impact in terms of delay has been undertaken which shows there will be minimal delay to vehicles at this crossing. This review has shown that with a high pedestrian demand there will be a maximum of one to two vehicles queuing at the lights. 

The flush median will remain with the proposal which will assist with access to the Papanui club.

·    Cycle lanes should be extended along Sawyers Arms Road from Highsted Road to Gardiners Road.

While it would be beneficial to extend the cycle lanes, this is unfortunately outside the scope of the project and the project budget is not sufficient to provide this facility.

·    The cycle lanes should have green surfacing along the whole length and be bordered by rumble strips.

With regard to the green surfacing, this is used at points of conflict to identify to drivers that they should look out for cyclists. Over using this surfacing would detract from that purpose as it would become the standard.

·    Intersection safety improvements at Harewood Road, Breens Road and Gardiners Road intersection should be prioritised before this safety improvement.

With regards to the Harewood Road / Breens Road / Gardiners Road intersection, there is no project in the current Long Term Plan for upgrading this intersection. However, Council are in the process of undertaking road corridor studies, which may inform the next Long Term Plan. “Safe route to school” signs and upgraded pedestrian rails have been recently installed at this intersection following concerns from the local community regarding safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

·    Heavy traffic should be redirected away from Sawyers Arms Road.

Sawyers Arms Road is identified as a Major Arterial Road and is designed to accommodate heavy vehicle traffic. This project is a pro-active initiative in anticipation of expected increased traffic volumes on Sawyers Arms Road.

·    Concern around the loss of parking for residents on Sawyers Arms Road when it is already limited by existing no stopping restrictions.

Sawyers Arms Road is a Major Arterial Road. The primary function of arterial roads is movement of traffic. Parking is a lower priority. Properties affected by the proposal have off street parking, and on street parking remains within an acceptable walking distance on both sides of Sawyers Arms Road to the north west and south east of the scheme, on Glasnevin Drive and on Cotswold Avenue.

·    No parking should be extended on the north side of Sawyers Arms Road to leave more room for vehicles turning right into Cotswold Avenue.

The extent of the no stopping area on Sawyers Arms Road has been referred to the Area Traffic Engineer for further investigation.

·    A number of other improvements were suggested which sit outside the scope of this project. These included upgrading the roundabout at Sawyers Arms Road/Highsted Road to lights, installing speed bumps outside Cotswold School, ground stabilisation on Sawyers Arms Road and concerns around no stopping lines on Glasnevin Drive.

This is unfortunately outside the scope of the project. The Area Traffic Engineer/Maintenance Team has been informed and will investigate further.

6.11    No changes have been made to the proposal for the following reasons:

·    Some responses during the consultation period did not support the installation of a signalised pedestrian crossing. However, it is the opinion of the project team that the proposed upgrade to a signalised pedestrian crossing is required because Traffic flows are expected to increase due to the Johns Road Project and this project provides a safe connection for the schools and community.

·    Some responses during the consultation period did not support the relocation of the bus stop. However, there is a need to retain the flush median on Sawyers Arms Road as per Figure 1 in the vicinity of the entrance to the Papanui Club as this will provide a safe waiting area for right turning traffic within the painted median. Space restrictions would lead to an unacceptable narrowing of the road corridor between the current bus stop location and the flush median. This has led to the proposal to relocate the west-bound bus stop, south side of Sawyers Arms Road (in proximity to Glasnevin Drive and Cotswold Avenue – as per Figure 1).

·    Some responses during the consultation period did not support the installation of cycle lanes on Sawyers Arms Roads. The project team regard that retention of cycle lanes as per Figure 1 on Sawyers Arms Road are required to de-conflict:

-      Stopped vehicles and cyclists at the signalised pedestrian crossing by providing a specific cycling lane and advanced stop box for cyclists to travel towards and wait at, the signalised pedestrian crossing.

-      Turning vehicles and cyclists at Glasnevin Drive and Cotswold Avenue by providing a specific cycling lane for cyclists to travel up to and away from the signalised pedestrian crossing.

·    This project is supported by Council’s Long Term Plan (2015 – 2025).

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.13    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, including: the District Plan, the Greater Christchurch Transport Statement, the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan, the transport Network Management Plan and the Infrastructure Design Standard.

Financial Implications

6.14    Council have allowed $541,588 for this project.

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

6.16    Funding source – Financial Year 2017 Capex Pedestrian Safety Initiatives

Legal Implications

6.17    There are no legal implications beyond Christchurch City Council’s rights as the Road Controlling Authority.

6.18    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.

6.19    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.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.21    There are no significant risks with this project that the Community Board need to be aware of.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - Approval by Community Board and Council.

6.23    Implementation timeframe - Construction of the signalised pedestrian crossing is planned to start in the last quarter of 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·    Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Sawyers Arms Road by providing a safe crossing facility.

·    Improved safety for cyclists as cycle lanes de-conflict:

-      Stopped vehicles and cyclists at the signalised pedestrian crossing.

-      Turning vehicles and cyclists at Glasnevin Drive and Cotswold Avenue.

·     The painted flush median will allow west-bound traffic space to wait to turn into the Papanui Club.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Relocation of west-bound bus stop.

·    Loss of up to three car parks due to relocation of west-bound bus stop.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Sawyers Arms Road will remain as is. The existing pedestrian refuge would remain with no changes.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent.

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       This option was not consulted on as this option would not deliver the required pedestrian safety improvements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       There would be no financial implication to Council

Legal Implications

7.8       None.

Risks and Mitigations

7.9       Safety not improved with increased risks as volumes increase.

Implementation

7.10    There are no changes required.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    This option does not address any proposed safety issues.

 

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

Andy Richards - Project Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board  – 27 February 2017

 

11.    Yaldhurst Model School speed zone

Reference:

17/212894

Contact:

Matt McLintock

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

03 941-6231

 

 

 

 

1.  Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Community Board Decided FWHB/2017/00001

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on School Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, that pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit
(40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on School Road, commencing at a point 70 metres south east of its intersection with Hasketts Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 340 metres.

3.         Approve, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Yaldhurst Model School speed zone

120

 

No.

Title

Page

a

TG130401 - Yaldhurst Model School Speed Zone Plan

125

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Yaldhurst Model School speed zone

Reference:

16/1391783

Contact:

Wayne Anisy

wayne.anisy@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board to endorse the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on School Road at Yaldhurst Model School, and recommend to the Council that it approve the new variable speed limit and its inclusion it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to the Yaldhurst Model School community requests and this site becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school speed zone implementation priority list.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions in this report are 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 project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on School Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, that pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on School Road, commencing at a point 70 metres south east of its intersection with Hasketts Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 340 metres.

3.         Approve, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install School Speed Zone for Yaldhurst Model School (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council has a commitment to improve road safety.  Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children.  The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process.  This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.2       For some time, the Yaldhurst Model School community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications resulting for children on their way to and from school.

Proposal

5.3       On School Road, electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the school zone and static (non-electronic) 'School Zone Ends' signs will be placed at the end of the zone.


 

6.   Option 1 - Install School Speed Zone for Yaldhurst Model School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the school speed zone as shown on Attachment A.

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 low.

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       Engagement was carried out on in the Yaldhurst area from 4 November to 23 November 2016.

6.6       65 copies were hand delivered to people who live in the immediate area, 14 were sent to absentee owners and 30 were sent to stakeholders.

6.7       During this time three people provided feedback. All generally supported this proposal and one provided information in regards to the placement of signage in relation to Orion Assets.

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 - $32,000

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.11    Funding source – School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

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 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations 

6.13    None identified.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise school speed zone.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Installed by June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·   The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

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 low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it remains high with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety concerns of the school and that of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

TG130401 - Yaldhurst Model School Speed Zone Plan

 

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board  – 27 February 2017

 

12.    Future of the Old Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Building

Reference:

17/212930

Contact:

Matt Mclintock

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt,nz

03 941 6231

 

 

 

 

1.  Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the demolition of the old Bishopdale library and community building.

2.         Grants delegated authority to the Manager Capital Delivery Community to do all things necessary at his sole discretion to undertake and complete the demolition.

3.         Requests that staff in conjunction with the Community Board explore whether there are alternative uses for the land that would fit within the purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 and report back on all of the options to seek a resolution as to its future use.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Future of the Old Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Building

128

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Bishopdale plan

136

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Future of the Old Bishopdale Community Centre and Library Building

Reference:

17/45428

Contact:

Angus Smith

angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

9418502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board to consider options for the future of the old Bishopdale library and community centre and seek the Board’s support to the staff recommendations that seek resolutions from the Council to demolish the building and commence a process to determine the future use of the land.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to deal with an outstanding issue arising from the earthquake.

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 utilising the significance and engagement assessment worksheet.  

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board recommends to Council that it pass the following resolutions:

That the Council:

1.         Approves the demolition of the old Bishopdale library and community building.

2.         Grants delegated authority to the Manager Capital Delivery Community to do all things necessary at his sole discretion to undertake and complete the demolition.

3.         Requests that staff in conjunction with the Community Board explore whether there are alternative uses for the land that would fit within the purpose of the Reserves Act 1977 and report back on all of the options to seek a resolution as to its future use.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Facilities, Property and Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10 Consultancy projects managed: e.g. acquisition of property rights, e.g. easements, leases and land assets to meet LTP funded projects and activities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Demolish the building

·     Option 2 - Retain and repair the building

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·        Creates certainty.

·        Removes a liability.

·        Will improve the general area.

·        Creates an opportunity for better utilisation of the area.

·        Provides an opportunity for alternative uses of the land to be considered in an informed way.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Future uses of the land are restricted to Reserves Act activities.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The Bishopdale Community Centre and Library was designed in 1974 and comprises a two storey building of approximately 672m2 per floor totalling 1344m2. The general construction is a reinforced concrete framed with a steel trussed roof.  Up until the earthquake it was actively used for library and community purposes.

5.2       The building was damaged during the earthquake and in the ensuing years had a number of surveys undertaken as to the extent of damage.  The survey results varied in terms of the technical NBS (new building standard) % rating, but in summary consistently determined that the building was “potentially Earthquake Prone” and as such should not be occupied.  However while having a critical structural weakness it did not pose a collapse risk and threat to the adjoining thoroughfares or buildings.

5.3       In 2013 and 2014 the Council considered a couple of reports as part of the Facilities Rebuild Program on the options for the repair of the building for continued provision of the library and community services. These deliberations culminated in a Council resolution on 12 June 2014 to replace this damaged existing facility with a new facility on the crèche site to the North West (refer attached plan). That project is well underway and due for completion the middle of this year (2017).

5.4       No decision has been made in respect of this old facility which is now abandoned and boarded up. To do this a number of factors need to be taken into consideration. These are set out as follows.

Land Status

5.5       The land was vested from the Crown in Waimairi District Council in trust for local purpose (community centre) pursuant to the Reserves Act 1977 by way of gazette in 1983.  This action followed a gazette in 1977 by the Crown closing the road. It was subsequently reclassified by way of gazette in 1986 and is currently held by Council as a Local Purpose (Community Centre) Reserve.

5.6       The purpose of holding and classifying the land this way is to ensure the control, management, development, use, maintenance, and preservation is in accordance with its principle or primary purpose under the Reserves Act.

 

Decision Making

5.7       In making a decision about the future of this building consideration also needs to be given to the land status and the consequential effects of decisions.  This requires a sequenced consideration of issues that is set out below.

 

 

Building Options and Issues

5.8       It is not recommended that the building be repaired for alternative uses use.

5.9       While feasibility of repair would normally be a key determining factor in the future use of a building, in this case the circumstances are such that there are other more significant determining factors to not warrant a revisit and refresh of the repair option.

5.9.1   Obsolescence – one of the factors in Council’s 2014 decision to build a new facility was that the building was not fit for purpose and showing signs of functional obsolescence. The cost of adapting the building to a new use, as well as repairing it, is unlikely to produce an outcome that is financially viable.

5.9.2   In June 2014 when considering whether to repair or build new it was advised that the cost to repair, strengthen and meet new compliance costs alone was at that time approx. $2.5m. This will certainly be higher at current day prices.

5.9.3   In addition the retention of the old facility will now detract visually from the new facility and the general amenity of the area. It is already a liability in terms of security and vandalism.

5.9.4   Service Activity Delivery – The replacement decision obviously meets the future library needs of the community.  Coupled with the YMCA facility the needs for a community facility are well provided for.  It would not be practical or sensible for the Council to repair the building for a continued and additional competing community facility to its own new facility and the YMCA.

5.9.5   Statutory Issues - The purpose and classification of the reserve status can be changed under section 16 of the Reserves Act thereby enabling it to be used for another purpose or activity so long as that alternative fits within the act. This would require consultation, Council resolution and Ministerial approval. It is however not evident that there are any other such activities/uses.

5.10    Conclusion on the building – Due to all of the above issues this report recommends that the building is demolished as soon as practically possible.

 

Land Options and Issues

5.11    In the event that the recommendation to demolish the building is supported the Council then needs to turn its mind to the consequential result of that, which is what to do with the land.  Should Council decide to demolish the building, then officers will initiate a separate process to establish if there are alternative activity or uses for the land in a structured way and using Council’s current process. The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board would be involved in this process.

 

6.   Option 1 – Demolish the building

Option Description

6.1       The Council resolve that the building be demolished due to the reasons set out in section 5.9 above, then deal with the remaining vacant land through a separate process.  The site can be tidied and grassed in the interim.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable. The opportunity for consultation on the future use options for the land is designed into the property review process.

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       The considerations that are involved in the decision to demolish the building would be unaffected by community views. The overriding factors germane to this are obsolesce, security, vandalism, visual amenity, financial viability to repair for reuse and the Reserve Act constraints.

6.6       That process to replace/abandon this facility involved engagement with a joint working party comprised of members of the community board, business association and public. This group had input into both concept design and location of the new facility.

6.7       The process to determine the future use of the land is designed to provide for consultation so that the views and preferences of the community can be sought.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Council has obligations to actively manage its buildings and land holdings and ensure they are used for the purpose for which they were acquired or make alternative use decisions, which may include disposal.

6.9       This option is also consistent and follows on logically from the Council’s prior decision to replace this facility with a new one on an adjoining site. Implicit in this decision was the abandonment of this old facility.

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – The estimated cost to demolish the building is approximately $253,000.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Demolition of the building would remove a liability and ongoing maintenance costs

6.12    Funding source – Facilities rebuild Opex budget.

Legal Implications

6.13    There are no legal implications associated with a decision to demolish the building.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.14    Demolition of this building removes a risk and liability. All risks associated with the demolition will be managed within that contract.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Awarding a demolition contract.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – As soon as practically possible in order to remove the derelict building ideally before completion of the new facility.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Creates certainty.

·   Removes a liability.

·   Will improve the general area.

·   Creates an opportunity for better utilisation of the area.

·   Provides an opportunity for alternative uses of the land to be considered in an informed way.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Future uses of the land are restricted to Reserves Act activities.

7.   Option 2 – Retain and repair the building

Option Description

7.1       Retain and repair the building for an alternative future use. Due to the land status this would need to be a use provided for under the Reserves Act.

7.2       This option is not recommend for the reasons set out in section 5.9 above.

Significance

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

7.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable. The opportunity for consultation on the future use options for the land is designed into the property review process.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       The considerations that are involved in the decision to demolish the building would be unaffected by community views. The overriding factors germane to this are obsolesce, security, vandalism, visual amenity, financial viability to repair for reuse and the Reserves Act constraints.

7.7       The process to replace/abandon this facility was a consultative process that involved engagement with a joint working party comprised of members of the community board, business association and public. This group had input into both concept design and location of the new facility.

7.8       The process to determine the future use of the land is designed to provide for consultation so that the views and preferences of the community can be sought.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Council has obligations to actively manage its buildings and land holdings and ensure used for the purpose for which they were acquired or make alternative use decisions, which may include disposal.

7.10    This option is also consistent and follows on logically from the Council’s prior decision to replace this facility with a new one on an adjoining site. Implicit in this decision was the abandonment of this old facility.

Financial Implications

7.11    Cost of Implementation – In 2014 the cost to repair and strengthen the building was $2.5m. The cost today would be more. This would need to be revisited but given the obvious practical choice of options engaging time, cost and resources on doing such an exercise at this stage is not considered to be warranted.

7.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There would be costs associated with running and maintaining a facility for the reasons as stated in the previous section these have not been investigated.

7.13    Funding source – There is currently no funding / budget for this option.

Legal Implications

7.14    There would be no significant legal implications.

7.15    Compliance with the Reserves Act will be necessary ie an appropriate use and classification.

Risks and Mitigations

7.16    There would be the normal risks associated with any new project e.g. cost escalation, timing, delivery etc.

7.17    Identifying another activity that supports the Reserves Act use and intentions carries some risk.

Implementation

7.18    Implementation dependencies - Creating a budget and plan item in the Annual Plan & Long term plan. Identifying an alternative use/activity and all of the issues associated with that.

7.19    Implementation timeframe – Unable to determine without scoping out all of the issues but could be six – eighteen months. Excluding the physical works contract period.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There is no obvious alternative use that would fit within the purpose of the Reserves Act. Would likely require a reclassification of the reserve.

·   Not in the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan, therefore unbudgeted and unfunded.

·   Creating additional facilities to deliver further Council activities and services in this area is not warranted.

·   Imposes additional operating costs.

·   Would be visually unappealing.

·   The building is functionally obsolete.

·   Unlikely to be financially viable.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Bishopdale plan

 

 

 

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

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

13.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/162095

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in February 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held meetings during December 2016, January 2017 and February 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   Tuesday 13 December 2016

·   Tuesday 31 January 2017

·   Tuesday 14 February 2017

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of the Proposed Halswell Area Speed Limit Changes was considered by the Council at its meeting on 2 February 2017.

 The Board’s consideration and recommendation of the Consultation on the Location of Library, Aquatic, Recreational and Customer Service Facilities in South West Christchurch was considered by the Council at its meeting on 9 February 2017.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

5.1       Community Facilities

5.1.1      South West Library, Service Centre and South West Aquatic Facility – new build. At an Extraordinary meeting on 31 January 2017, the Board agreed to recommendations to Council on 9 February 2017 about commencing community consultation and engagement on three location options for these facilities in the Hornby area. 

5.1.2      Riccarton Community Centre - The current forecast is for a late 2018 opening. Staff and appointed consultants are currently working through the design phases, which includes reviewing the specific functions required by the facility.  Once design is completed, consenting and procurement of a main contractor to construct the building will commence. It is expected the successful party to start on site late in 2017.

5.1.3      Denton Oval - Repair and upgrade - the lighting, grandstand and security fencing installation has recently been completed.

5.1.4      Wharenui Pool - the pool building has been strengthened to 67 per cent of the New Building Standard. Repairs are completed in the three changing rooms so they are now compliant. Minor construction along the west wall and replacement of the fan will be completed in February. Project completion is on schedule for the end of February. Staff presented to the board the final results at the board meeting 28/02/2017.

5.1.5      Nga Puna Wai - Sports Hub (staged) - the civil site works for Stage 1 are scheduled to commence in April 2017 a milestone event was attended by local and Central Government elected members along with local school children and community on 28/02/2017.

5.1.6      Halswell Skate and Recreation Parks – the approved locations in Halswell Domain and Knights Stream Sports Park are currently in the design and community consultation phases. Tendering and construction is scheduled for 2017-18.

5.1.7      The Halswell Skate Jam was held on Friday 27 January 2017 and attracted almost 300 people, with over 120 children aged between five and twelve using the skate boards, scooters or inline skates provided by Cheapskates SkateSkool. Attendees and the public had the opportunity to examine and comment on the proposed designs for the new Halswell Skate Park facilities. Event feedback was positive and well received by the attending families

5.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

  Nothing to report this Month

5.3       Infrastructure projects underway

5.3.1 Some of the key Infrastructure projects in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards are:

·     Riccarton Road - Bus Priority and Infrastructure Upgrade - Construction is ongoing.  Signalisation of the Deans Avenue, Riccarton Avenue, Riccarton Road intersection was completed in December 2016.  Work on the Deans Avenue/Harakeke Street/ Clarence Street section of the road is progressing.

·     Christchurch Southern Motorway, Stage 2 (New Zealand Transport Agency project). The McConnell Dowell/Downer joint venture commenced site works in October 2016. The construction timeframe for completion of the project is three and a half years. The Board will be requesting an update from Mc Connell Dowell/Downer.

·     Riccarton Road Intersections and corridor improvements. The project to improve road safety at Ilam/Middleton/Riccarton intersection is scheduled to commence in 2016-17 with completion in the 2017-18 period. The Board will be requesting an update from staff on progress.

·     Pound Road Realignment – work continues on realigning Pound Road with State Highway 1 in Templeton.

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Perceived anti-social behaviour by youth in the Riccarton area.

6.1.1   Status – Complaints continue to be raised about anti-social behaviour predominantly by youth in the Riccarton Mall area and around the bus exchange on Riccarton road.

6.1.2   Action – Police presence in the area continues.  Security guards are based in the Bus Lounge on a daily basis.  Youth workers and security staff work at de-escalating situations.  Trespass notices are taken against transgressing youth at the Bus Lounge and Westfield Mall.

6.1.3   Timeframe - Actions above are ongoing.  A briefing to Board members from youth workers is being scheduled for early March.

6.2       Community concern over the applications for new liquor licenses.

6.2.1   Status - The application for a new liquor licence at 76 Riccarton Road was a recent application that attracted community concerns.  Public notice of all liquor applications are published in either The Press or the Christchurch Star.  Notification of the public notice placement is sent to all elected members as well as community groups in the Board’s area.  This alerts the community to applications received and provides them with the opportunity to lodge objections should they so wish.

6.2.2   Action - Objections are able to be lodged against any liquor licence application.  Generally a licence application that attracts objections will be subject to a hearing.

6.2.3   Timeframe - The hearing for the liquor licence application by PM Liquor Ltd for 76 Riccarton Road was scheduled for 2 February 2017 however this now occurring on the 16th March.  It attracted 11 objections including one with a 15 signature petition.

7.   Progress Report on the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan therefore there is nothing to report at this time.

8.   Community Board Significance Matters of Interest 

8.1       The Hearing in front of a Commissioner on 15 and 16 February on the consent for a Funeral home in Halswell raised the issue for the Board on why this was a limited notification to fifteen properties of which nine were empty sections. The belief of the Board is that the cultural mix of the community needs to be noted when a decision is made to address cultural expectations. 

8.2       The issue of Owaka pit continues to frustrate the Board with a believed lack of information including a timeline for the site to be cleared.

8.3       The Board will receive a workshop on the consultation document for the South West Library, Service Centre and Aquatic facility on the 14th March and will receive a report to finalise the document on the 28th March to be presented to Council on 6th April.

8.4       The Board bus trip is booked for the 13th March between 3,30pm and 7pm, an invite has been sent to all elected members.

8.5       Culture Galore will occur at Ray Blank Park in Avonhead on 11th March from 12-4pm

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 13 December 2016 Minutes

140

b

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 31 January 2017 Minutes

155

c

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 14 February 2017 Minutes

159

 

 

Signatories

Author

Gary Watson - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

14.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/89715

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising since the last report.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Confirmation of Minutes

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on the following date and is circulating the attached minutes recorded to the Council for its information:

3.1       12 December 2016

3.2       30 January 2017

3.3       15 February 2017

3.4       27 February 2017

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

4.1       30 January 2017 (Clause 8) – The Board provided comment to the Council on the assignment of lease from the Canterbury Horticultural Society to Canterbury Cricket Trust report that was presented to the Council on 2 February 2017.  The Council resolved the report recommendations which did not include the Community Board’s feedback.

4.2       27 February 2017 (Clause 5) – Tutehounuku (Nuk) Korako, Member of Parliament, presented a 1759 signatory petition to the Board requesting to:

Establish school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua & Linwood Avenue Schools.

The petition will be submitted to the Council by way of a separate report.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

5.1       Woolston Community Facility

5.1.1   Status

The Council is working with the community to design a new facility for Woolston Village to replace the earthquake damaged 1871 Woolston volunteer library at 689 Ferry Road.  The project does not affect the existing Woolston Community Centre next to Woolston Park.

At their 12 December meeting, the Community Board resolved the elected members’ membership on a joint working group that will also include community representatives and Council staff.

5.1.2   Action Required

Staff have designed an engagement plan and materials for the consultation process. 

5.1.3   Timeframe

Consultation on the concept design of the Woolston Community Facility will be held from Wednesday 22 February and closes on Thursday 30 March 2017.  A drop in session is to be held on Tuesday 14 March.  Information on the consultation will also be available at the Woolston Gala being held on Saturday 25 March. 2017.

5.2       Linwood/Woolston aquatic facility

5.2.1   Status

Staff updated the Board on the work being done under the Linwood/Woolston aquatic facility project.  Work is ongoing and has not been affected.  Staff have put together a report on the engagement process that sought to document what the aspirations of people who live, work and learn in the Linwood area are. 

5.2.2   Action Required

The Board requested staff to provide information on what the site selection process would be.

5.2.3   Timeframe

The Board would be provided with this information by the end of March 2017.

5.3       Linwood Development Aspirations

5.3.1   Status

Staff have over the past months worked through an engagement process to find out what the social and infrastructural development aspirations of those who live, work and learn in Linwood are.  A report has been written up with suggested next steps based on findings.

5.3.2   Action Required

The Board requested that Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE), the Woolston Gala, Waltham Fair and other opportunities be used by staff as a pre-engagement process for Linwood Development Aspirations.

5.3.3   Timeframe

Pre-engagement to begin in March 2017 and end by July 2017.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

St Andrews Hill/Bridle Road Intersection

6.1       Status

6.1.1   In March 2015 the reconstruction of Ferrymead Bridge was completed following the earthquakes. The reconstruction of the bridge meant that the previous intersection of St Andrews Hill Road with Main Road could not be accommodated and a new layout was proposed. Many options were considered at the time and the preferred option was that which exists now. Concerns have been raised with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board from the community regarding the safety of the current intersection layout.

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   In response to the safety concerns raised, Council has prepared two alternative options for this intersection that Council is now seeking feedback from the community on. The status quo will also be considered as an option.

6.3       Timeframe

6.3.1   Consultation on the options was from 25 January and closed on 23 February 2017.  Two drop in sessions were held on 1 and 9 February 2017.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       Progress report to be given in April 2017.

8.   Community Board Significance Matters of Interest 

8.1       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Annual Plan Engagement and Consultation The Board’s Community Engagement Plan for the Draft Annual Plan includes community workshops and a presence at community events and meetings.  The Board have planned to have two local community workshops, on Monday 27 March from 3.30pm to 5.00pm in Linwood and Tuesday 28 March from 7.30pm to 9.00pm in Redcliffs. 

8.2       Upcoming Events within the Community Board Area

a.         15 March 2017 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting, 10am at Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street, Linwood.

b.         18 March 2017 – Waltham Fair, 11am – 2pm at Waltham School.  This will be used by the Community Board and Council staff as an opportunity to raise awareness on the Annual Plan process and its importance.

c.         25 March 2017 – Woolston Gala, 11am – 2pm at Woolston Park, Ferry Road. This will be used by the Community Board and Council staff as an opportunity to raise awareness on the Annual Plan process and its importance.

d.         27 March 2017 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board-led Annual Plan engagement, 3.30pm – 5pm at the Loft, Eastgate, Linwood.

e.         30 March 2017 - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board-led Annual Plan engagement, 7.15pm – 8.45pm at Mount Pleasant Community Centre, 3 McCormacks Bay Road, Mount Pleasant.

f.          31 March 2017 - Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Garden Pride Awards recognising the effort of those who contribute to enhancing the overall image of Christchurch as the Garden City.

g.         3 April 2017 – Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting, 3pm at Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street, Linwood.

8.3       Sumner Skate Park – During the first week of February 2017 a temporary skate ramp that has been in use on a former business site in the Sumner Village had to stop operating due to compliance issues.  The Council received complaints on the noise associated with the skating activity within a residential zone.  The Board had a briefing at its 15 February 2017 meeting from Compliance and Investigations staff on the advice that has been received from the Council’s Legal Services.  The Board was advised that staff will continue to work with the community group that has set up the temporary skate ramp to work on a solution.  The Board resolved at its 15 February 2017 meeting:

1.      To request that staff work with the Sumner Village Green and Skatepark Group and local elected representatives to find a longer term site for the temporary ramp in Sumner.

At its 27 February 2017 meeting the Board received a deputation from the Skate representatives of the Skatepark Group on their work to find a permanent site for a skate facility in Sumner.  The representatives spoke regarding the site selection, and integration of a village green.  At the same meeting the Board also received a staff report regarding site investigation for a Bays Area (Ferrymead to Sumner) permanent skate facility site.  The Board resolved:

1.    Request staff to prepare a report investigating the possibility of suitable locations for permanent skate facilities in the Bays Area (Ferrymead to Sumner) including 26 Nayland Street.

2.    That the report be completed in a timeframe that allows for budget consideration for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, should a suitable location be identified.

3.    That the Board write to Land Information New Zealand in support of the community’s application for temporary use of 20-24 Nayland Street as a village green.

8.4       Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCRIT) Repair Quality – The Board are concerned on the quality of repairs relating to road carriageways and footpaths within the Community Board area.

8.5       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Bus Tour – The Board area bus tour was held on 20 January 2017.  The Board appreciated the opportunity to interact with staff and community members on the issues in the three wards.  The Board would like to thank Councillors Chen and Davidson for their attendance throughout the tour.

8.6       Port Hills Fire - The Board would like to acknowledge and thank the Council and Community Governance Team staff for their work in response to the Port Hills February 2017 fires. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Meeting Minutes 12 December 2016

171

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Meeting Minutes 30 January 2017

186

c

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Meeting Minutes 15 February 2017

195

d

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Meeting Unconfirmed Minutes 27 February 2017

202

 

 

Signatories

Author

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

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 27 February 2017

 

15.    Petition: To Establish School Speed Zones with Flashing 40km/hr Signage outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools

Reference:

17/203760

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

 

1.   Consideration

 

The Linwood-Central- Heathcote Community Board 27 February 2017 received from Nuk Karoko a 1759 signatory petition requesting to establish school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools.

 

2.   Staff Comment

 

Council has made funding available for School Speed Zones to be installed outside approximately three schools each financial year, on a needs basis according to a Council approved prioritisation process.   The highest priority sites for School Speed Zones (excluding sites already underway) at the present time are:

1.    Cashmere High School on Cashmere Road – Spreydon-Cashmere Board

2.    Chch South Intermediate on Selwyn Street – Spreydon-Cashmere Board 

3.    Paparoa School on Tomes Road – Papanui-Innes Board

 

As part of the Ferry Road at Woolston Village project, the Council have consulted on a 30km/h speed restriction which would cover Ferry Road adjacent to St Annes School.  This proposal gives a higher level of speed control than a School Speed Zone and hence achieves the intent of the petition for this location. 

 

There is a proposal under consideration at present relating to the upgrade of Ferry Road at Woolston Park that would be scoped to treat the frontage of Te Waka Unua.  The preferred treatment for the Ferry Road frontage at Te Waka Unua School is a signalised pedestrian crossing.  The reason a signalised pedestrian crossing is the preferred treatment is that the volume of traffic on Ferry Road makes it very difficult for children to operate the existing school patrol because of the lack of gaps in traffic.  The installation of a School Speed Zone at Te Waka Unua is not likely to be effective because speeds are already restricted by congestion and it would also not improve the ability to operate the school patrol.  Unless funded as a special project, a School Speed Zone in this location would defer the installation of a School Speed Zone at one of the priority sites listed above.  If Council were to fund an improvement to the Ferry Road frontage of Te Waka Unua School as a priority standalone project, then staff would seek that a funding allowance for a signalised crossing is made. 

 

Linwood Avenue School is located close to a mid-block signalised crossing on Linwood Avenue.  Staff consider that the ability of school children to safety stop traffic by the use of signals to cross Linwood Avenue provides the highest level of safety available from any of the infrastructure type treatments that the Council may implement.  Therefore, it is the view of staff that a School Speed Zone is this location would not only be unnecessary, it would unjustly defer the provision of a School Speed Zone where there is a greater need.  It is noted that as part of the Major Cycle Route scheme for Linwood Avenue, the existing signalised crossing will undergo a significantly upgrade to cater for cyclists as well as pedestrians.  This project is currently programmed to be fully complete in July 2018.

 

 

3.   Decisions Under Delegation

 

The petition is referred to the Council as the Community Board does not have the delegation to approve school speed zones and flashing speed zone LED lights.

 

4.   Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council receive and support the petition presented to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board at is 27 February 2017 meeting by Nuk Karako regarding establishing school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr signs outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools.

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board fully support the petition to have school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr signs outside the three schools on Ferry Road and Linwood Avenue.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

MP Nuk Korako's Presentation for the Road Safety Petition for St Anne's, Te Waka Una and Linwood Avenue Schools

213

b

Road Safety Petition for St Anne's, Te Waka Una and Linwood Avenue Schools

215

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

16.    Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/157180

Contact:

Jenny Hughey

jenny.hughey@ccc.govt.nz

941 5412

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in February.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Papanui-Innes Community Board held meetings during December 2016 and February 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   9 December 2016

·   10 February 2017

·   24 February 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to the Council

There are no Part A recommendations to the Council.

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

5.1  St Albans Community Centre Rebuild       

5.1.1   Status

The St Albans Community Centre rebuild is on track against the proposed timeframe with the Resource Consent application due to be applied for in March.

 Action Required

The final decision made on the cladding and exterior appearance of the Community Centre at a joint meeting of the Papanui-Innes Community Board and St Albans Working Party meeting on Tuesday 28 February will be confirmed by the Community Board at the meeting of 10 March.

5.1.2   Timeframe

The Resource Consent will be applied for in March 2017 and planning will continue to final design with the rebuild anticipated to be commenced in August 2017.

5.2       Proposed Community Facility Rebuild – 10 Shirley Road  

5.2.1   Status

The need for a replacement facility has undergone extensive community consultation and a budget of $2.4 million has been allocated to this rebuild.

5.2.2   Action Required

The finalisation of the 2017/18 Draft Annual Plan resulted in a decision for the funding of the rebuild to be included in the Long Term Plan.

5.2.3   Timeframe

Will be determined by the timing of the Annual Plan decision.

5.3       St Albans Park Pavilion and Toilets

5.3.1   Status

Remedial work is planned for both the buildings and the grassed area of St Albans Park and is funded in the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

5.3.2   Action Required

The use of the buildings is to be assessed with the priorities as suggested by the Board being shade, storage and toilets. Redevelopment of the disused gravel area is also under consideration.

5.3.3   Timeframe

April/May 2017.

5.4       Redwood Plunket Rooms

5.4.1   Status

A memorandum was presented to the Board at their 9 December meeting regarding the community need for the use of the Redwood Plunket Rooms. These rooms will provide a local base for the Community Board funded community worker employed through the Belfast Community Network.

5.4.2   Action Required

The Board has resolved that the Redwood Plunket Rooms be repaired for community use and that further information be provided to the Board in March 2017.

5.4.3   Timeframe

March 2017.

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Rutland Street Cycleway Construction

6.1.1   Status

Concern has been raised by business-owners of the Rutland Street shops on the effects of the ongoing construction work and subsequent lack of parking on their businesses. Fulton Hogan are liaising regularly with these businesses and are regularly moving the no stopping areas to allow access to the shops.

6.1.2   Action Required

Staff agreed to investigate the public consultation undertaken for this project.

 

6.1.3   Timeframe

Information to be presented to the Board in March.

6.2       The Council and Housing New Zealand (HNZ) ‘Redevelopment of Shirley’ Project

6.2.1   Status

The project purpose is the practical collaboration between the Council and HNZ to redevelop the Shirley area. Arising out of the Land Use Recovery Plan following the earthquake, work is progressing around master planning and investigation into the complexity of renewal, development viability and rehousing priorities for the Shirley area.

A working party has met and early engagement for the project has taken place with the community which included informing schools and community organisations around the idea.

6.2.2   Action

Staff are involved in the working party. A community engagement meeting was held on 29 November 2016 to introduce the plan officially to the community. An information stall was also held at the “SHINE” community event on 5 November 2016 in MacFarlane Park, seeking community input and the providing of information. Currently the main issue is the complexity and scale of the Shirley Redevelopment Plan which involves potential reconfiguration of open space, land swaps, redevelopment of community facilities and amenity improvement.

6.2.3   Timeframe

The working party updated the Board in a seminar on 10 February 2017.

6.3       2017/18 Draft Annual Plan Matters

6.3.1   Status

The Community Board proposed the following items for inclusion in the Draft 2017/18 Annual Plan:

·     Redwood Plunket Rooms repair. This will contribute to the local Redwood community through the community work of the Northcote community collaboration project and the location of a community worker in this building.

·     The St Albans Community Centre Rebuild will proceed as planned with funding available for the rebuild to commence in August 2017. This will benefit the community by providing a replacement building for the earthquake-demolished St Albans Community Centre and the temporary Lions Transitional Community Centre. The building will be a fully activated community space to enable the local community to build resilience by providing a focal point for community meetings and capacity building projects.

·     St Albans Park Pavilion and Toilets. The remedial work will proceed in April/May 2017. This will benefit the community through providing adequate facilities for sport and recreation.  Further, the grassed area will be upgraded.

·     The relocation of the Lions Transitional Community Facility to MacFarlane Park in Shirley. This facility will benefit the local Shirley community by providing a space for community engagement, community meetings and will extend the current community activation projects in the local Shirley area.

6.3.2   Action Required

The Community Board advocated for funding of the projects listed above which are contained in the Draft 2017/18 Annual Plan which will open for public consultation on the 20 March and close on 28 April.

Opportunities for the public to be engaged in the Draft Annual Plan consultation process includes a workshop to be held on 7 April at the North Avon Baptist Church, 103 North Avon Road, Richmond. A second workshop will be held on 18 April at the Papanui-Innes Boardroom located at the Papanui Library and Service Centre.  In addition a third workshop will be held on 10 April at 5.30pm at the Papanui–Innes Boardroom.

Information will be also be available at the Mairehau Community Day on 25 March at the Mairehau Primary School.

Information will also be available at the following events:

·     Papanui Walk and Talk on 22 March, 29 March, 5 April, 12 April and 19 April at 10am meeting outside the Papanui Library

·     Culture Galore on Saturday 11 March

·     Community Pride Garden Awards on 20 March

·     Belfast Neighbourhood Day on 24 March

·     Youth Event 28 April (TBC)

Information will also be available on the “Have Your Say” page of the Council’s website during the time the Draft 2017/18 Annual Plan is open for public consultation.

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       Report to be considered at a meeting in March 2017.

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

 

8.1                      Belfast Emergency Response Plan (BERP)

Community Governance staff in consultation with Civil Defence continue to work alongside community organisations in Belfast with the development of the BERP. Due to recent events the plan is being developed to include supporting the wider coastal community and the BERP will support any further tsunami evacuations by opening as a support centre.

8.2          The Community Board Chair will speak to the following items:

·    The amount of roadworks in the Papanui-Innes Board area. In particular the roadworks around the cycleways and the ongoing engagement between the local residents and the Council.

·    St Albans Community Facility rebuild process. The community governance approach through involving the community in a Community Board Working Party with staff providing technical assistance is working in an extremely positive way.

8.3          Forthcoming events and activities

The St Albans Community Centre Working Party meeting – Tuesday 28 February 2017.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Papanui-Innes Community Board Confirmed Minutes - 9 December 2016

324

b

Papanui-Innes Community Board Confirmed Minutes - 10 February 2017

334

c

Papanui-Innes Community Board Minutes 24 February 2017

342

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Jenny Hughey - Community Governance Manager, Papanui-Innes

Judith Pascoe - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

17.    Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/156395

Contact:

Arohanui-Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in December 2016 and February 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receives the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held meetings during December 2016 and February 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   9 December 2016

·   7 February 2017

·   24 February 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Somerfield School Speed Zone.

4.2       Port Hills Recovery Multi-disciplinary Task Force.

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

Repair Old Stone House

5.1       Status

5.1.1   The historic Old Stone House in Cracroft was extensively damaged in the earthquakes. The repair with a budget of two million dollars got underway in September 2016. The building was well used and is much loved locally. The repair will need to maintain the heritage character of the building. The Spreydon/Heathcote community Board was briefed on the project at a seminar in September 2016.

 

5.2       Action Required

5.2.1      Regular staff updates are to be provided to the Board on progress with the repair. The Old Stone House was a destination for the Board on the Bus tour that was to have taken place on 17 February but had to be cancelled due to the Port Hills Fires. A new date is being arranged for tour that will incorporate a staff briefing at the Old Stone house.

 

5.3       Timeframe

5.3.1      The repair was originally estimated to take one year to complete. It is as yet unclear whether the recent Port Hills fires and aftermath will significantly impact on the repair schedule.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

Port Hills Fires

6.1       Status

6.1.1   The recent fires on the Port Hills had a devastating effect on the both the natural and built environment and on the lives of local residents. The aftermath is expected to result in numerous issues for affected residents.  The nature and extent of these and any support needed in response being identified and will be part of the recovery plan.

6.1.2   The Cracroft Residents Association wrote a letter to the editor of The Press on 22 February, expressing gratitude for the Civil Defence efforts on behalf of their residents affected by the fires.  Copy attached.

6.1.3   A deputation of local environmental representatives attended the Board meeting on 24 February 2017 addressed the Board regarding a proposal for a multi-disciplinary task force to be established to deal with the effects of the recent fires on the Port Hills.  They outlined the high concern of local environmental groups and residents and the need for them to be included in the recovery process which was seen as important in the healing process

6.2       Action

6.2.1   The Board passed a resolution recommending to Council that it lead the creation of a
Port Hills recovery multidisciplinary task force centred on planning recovery and identifying, mitigating and managing the effects of the recent Port Hills fires on the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River margins and tributaries, that will involve local river and hill communities as partners in all facets of planning and consultation. The recommendation is in a Part A report to be considered at this meeting.

6.3       Timeframe

6.2.2   The Board’s recommendation to Council is in a Part A report included in the agenda to be considered at this meeting.

Maintenance of Plants in Parks and Reserves

6.4  Status

6.4.1      There has been considerable concern voiced by local volunteers directly to elected members and staff about the standard of maintenance work undertaken in reserves within the Board area.  In particular it is alleged that careless use of weed trimmers is damaging vegetation including plantings done by community groups.  The concern was discussed by the Board at its meeting on 7 February 2017.

6.5  Action

6.5.1      A preliminary meeting has been held between local Community Governance and Parks staff and a community representative. A workshop is being arranged between Parks staff, local Community Governance staff, elected members and community representatives to look at the matters raised and how they can be addressed.

 

6.6          Timeframe

6.6.1      The workshop is being planned for late March or early April depending on the availability of attendees.

St Mary’s Church 150 year anniversary celebration

6.7          Status

6.7.1                At its meeting on 7 February 2017 the Board approved a grant of $600 from its 2016/17 Discretionary response fund to St Mary’s Church in Addington towards a community picnic to celebrate the Church’s 150 years anniversary.  The picnic was held in Church Square on Sunday 19 February and enjoyed by all attendees including at least one Board member.

6.8         Action

6.8.1                Payment of the grant moneys to be arranged.

6.9          Timeframe

6.9.1                Payment of grant made.

 

Kereru Sports and Cultural Club

6.10    Status

6.10.1             Kereru Sports and Cultural Club leased the Coronation Hall at Spreydon Domain that was significantly damaged by fire in 2014.  The club by agreement with the Spreydon Bowling Club has taken over the lease of its premises and held an opening of its new clubrooms at Spreydon Domain, Domain Terrace on 3 February 2017.

6.11        Action

6.11.1             The Board Chair was invited to open the new clubrooms.

6.12        Timeframe

6.12.1             Completed

 

West-Spreydon School swimming pool

6.13        Status

6.13.1             West-Spreydon School lost its recently competed school swimming pool as a result of the earthquakes. The pool had been built with funds raised by the School. Through further significant fundraising by the school and its families the pool is being rebuilt.

6.13.2             The Board noted at its meeting at its meeting on 24 February 2017 that the School is calling for the help of the community to provide construction and other supplies or services necessary to get its new swimming pool operational.

6.14        Action

6.14.1             Board members and local staff will maintain an interest in the progress of this significant community project.

6.15        Timeframe

6.15.1             Ongoing

 

St Mary’s Church Bell Tower

     6.16    Status            

6.16.1             The Board received information at its meeting on 24 February 2017 that faults needing repair have been identified in the internal stairs in the Bell Tower at St Mary’s Church in Addington. The bell tower  is historically important to the area as it is dedicated to the memory of Richard John Seddon, Premier of New Zealand for 13 years a frequent visitor to the vicarage in Addington, and gave money for "some bells for ringing". Following his death more funds were raised and a peal of eight bells was hung in the newly erected bell-tower.  The Church community is exploring avenues for funding of the repair.

     6.17    Action

6.17.1              Board members and local staff will maintain an interest in the progress of this         significant community project.

   6.18    Timeframe

6.15.1             Ongoing

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

As the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan there is nothing to report at this time.

 

8.   Community Board Significance Matters of Interest 

8.1       Accessibility

The Board continues to be interested in all aspects of accessibility including on street and off street parking and building access. The Board’s predecessor, the Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board passed a number of resolutions seeking staff advice and action regarding concerns about accessibility parking including a request for an audit of accessibility parking in the ward. The Board chairperson recently identified a deficiency in provision of an accessible car park at the re-opened Sign of the Kiwi. This has now been addressed.

8.2       Selwyn Street Shops Master Plan proposal

A masterplan for re-development of the area of the Selwyn Streets shops was prepared after the 2011 earthquake.  Recent consultation on a proposal for redevelopment in terms of the Master Plan resulted in 102 submissions.  As a result of the feedback received staff have come back to the Board to outline a significantly modified proposal that seems to address most of the concerns raised.  The Board was impressed by the knowledge, expertise and responsiveness shown by staff but notes the programming of the project may be affected by the annual plan process.

8.3       Signage as a means of Communication

The Board considers that there are many advantages in the Council erecting appropriate informative signage at the sites of significant projects and developments as a means of communicating the extent and purpose of the work.  Residents are often not aware of the work that is being done by the Council on their behalf or the purpose and aims of Council projects.  This could be addressed by good on site signage that is readable as people pass by and provided an explanation of work proposed or in progress.  It is noted in this regard that excellent signs have been placed at Ngā Puna Wai outlining the development.

8.4       Community Board Upcoming events:

Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board meeting Tuesday 7 March 2017, Boardroom, Beckenham Service Centre, 5pm.

Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board Workshop- Processes and Protocols, Tuesday 14 March 2017 1:30-4:30pm

Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board Going Paperless training session, Friday 17 March  2017, between 9.00 – 5.00pm, subject to confirmation

Annual Plan community workshop, Tuesday 21 March 2017 at the Kereru Sports Club, 73 Domain Terrace, from 5.30pm- 7:30pm

Hillmorton High School Board of Trustees meeting, Monday 21 March 2017 at Hillmorton High school Boardroom, Tankerville Road, 7pm.

Spreydon- Cashmere Community Board meeting Friday 24 March 2017, Boardroom, Beckenham Service Centre, 8am.

Spreydon Cashmere Community Pride Garden Awards – 29 March 2017 5.30 – 7.30pm, at the Cashmere Club

Annual Plan drop - in day on Tuesday 4 April at Beckenham Service Centre 9.00am – 5.00pm

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes 9 December 2016

354

b

Spreydon-Cashmere Communmity Board Minutes 7 February 2017

364

c

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board - Unconfirmed Minutes - 24 February 2017

371

d

Cracroft RRA Letter to Editor The Press 22 February 2017

377

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 7 February 2017

 

18.    Somerfield School speed zone

Reference:

17/140299

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

 

 

1.  Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendation Accepted Without Change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on
Studholme Street, Somerfield Street and Bard Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approves that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Studholme Street, commencing at its intersection with Somerfield Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 230 metres then in a south westerly direction for a distance of 250 metres.

b.         Somerfield Street, commencing at a point 120 metres north east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 320 metres.

c.         Bard Street, commencing at its intersection with Studholme Street and extending in a north easterly direction to its cul-de-sac end.

3.         Approves that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Somerfield School speed zone

380

 

No.

Title

Page

a

TG130601 - Somerfield Street Speed Zone Plan

385

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

Somerfield School speed zone

Reference:

16/1393811

Contact:

John Dore

John.Dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to consider the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Studholme Street and Somerfield Street at, or adjacent to Somerfield School, and make a recommendation to the Council on approval of the new variable speed limit and its inclusion in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to the Somerfield School community requests and this site becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

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 project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Studholme Street, Somerfield Street and Bard Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Studholme Street, commencing at its intersection with Somerfield Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 230 metres then in a south westerly direction for a distance of 250 metres.

b.         Somerfield Street, commencing at a point 120 metres north east of its intersection with Barrington Street and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 320 metres.

c.         Bard Street, commencing at its intersection with Studholme Street and extending in a north easterly direction to its cul-de-sac end.

3.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install School Speed Zone for Somerfield School (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.2       For some time, the Somerfield School community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications resulting for children on their way to and from school.

Proposal

5.3       On Studholme Street and Somerfield Street, electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the school zone and static (non-electronic) 'School Zone Ends' signs will be placed at the end of the zone. Back to back static signs are proposed be placed on Studholme Street and Tainui Street. Static reminder signs are proposed to be placed on Studholme Street due to the long zone length and the right angle bend in the road.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install a school speed zone for Somerfield Street (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the school speed zone as shown on Attachment A.

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 low.

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       Engagement was carried out on in the Somerfield area from 10 November to 1 December 2016.

6.6       495 copies were hand delivered to people who live in the immediate area 110 were sent to absentee owners and 29 were sent to stakeholders.

6.7       During this time six people provided feedback. One person supported the proposal but suggested that the use of existing speed bumps be clarified so that people understand whether or not it is an official crossing. The response was that we have had discussions with the school Principal, and will have further discussions about education the children, and their parents, that this is not a crossing where pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles.

6.8       Two people supported the proposal but wanted the proposal to be extended to Barrington Street. Barrington Street is not considered in this proposal as the crossing location is remote from the school and so has a lower concentration of students.  Experience has shown drivers tend to be less compliant in these situations. Also, the effect of slowing vehicles of a high volume road is to reduce gaps in traffic which would make the school patrol crossing harder to operate on Barrington Street.

6.9       One provided information in regards to the placement of signage in relation to Orion Assets.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $50,500

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.13    Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations    

6.15    None identified.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise school speed zone.

6.17    Implementation timeframe - Installed by June 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reduces the operational speed, therefore improves the safety in the area during the school hours.

·   The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

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 low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it remains high with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety concerns of the school and that of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

TG130601 - Somerfield Street Speed Zone Plan

 

 

 

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

Megan Reid - Junior Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 24 February 2017

 

19.    Proposal for a Port Hills Recovery Multidisciplinary Task Force

Reference:

17/199731

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

a

1.   Consideration

 

The Board received a deputation from Karen Whitla, Alisdair Hutchison and Ken Rouse regarding a proposal for to a multi-disciplinary task force to be established to deal with the effects of the recent fires on the Port Hills. The Board recognised the concern of local environmental groups and residents and the need for them to be included in the recovery process.

 

2.   Staff Advice and Recommendation

 

Port Hills Recovery planning is underway and it will provide for involvement of the local community as suggested by the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network. 

 

Staff Recommendation:

 

That the Council receive the information provided by the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network and passing the request on the Natural Environment Recovery managers to be incorporated into the recovery planning

 

 

3.   Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council lead the creation of a Port Hills recovery multidisciplinary task force centred on planning recovery and identifying, mitigating and managing the effects of the recent Port Hills fires on the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River margins and tributaries, that will involve local river and hill communities as partners in all facets of planning and consultation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Deputation to the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board 24 February 2017

388

 

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

20.    Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/150235

Contact:

Penelope Goldstone and Joan Blatchford

penelope.goldstone@ccc.govt.nz
joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz

941 5689
941 5643

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising from mid-December 2016 to mid-February 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Meeting Minutes

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held meetings from December 2016 to February 2017 and is providing the attached minutes to the Council for its information:

·   12 December 2016

·   30 January 2017

·   13 February 2017

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations to Council.

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives (e.g. major community or infrastructure projects)

       Akaroa Treated Wastewater Reuse Options Working Party      

5.1       Status

At the Board’s 30 January 2017 meeting, Lee Robinson on behalf of the Friends of Banks Peninsula Inc. representing residents of Robinsons Bay and Takamatua Valley addressed the Board regarding the Akaroa Treated Wastewater Disposal Project. A number of residents were in attendance at the meeting and apologies were tabled from a further 51 residents.

A document, the Community Strategy Toward an Acceptable Solution to the Disposal of Akaroa Wastewater, prepared and adopted by the community of Robinsons Bay and adopted by Friends of Banks Peninsula, was tabled.  Andrew Dakers of EcoEng Limited has been engaged by Friends of Banks Peninsula and he provided advice on wastewater treatment options, as part of the presentation to the Board.

Mr Robinson said what the group was seeking from the Board was:

·     Endorsement of the Community Strategy;

·     A delay in any further consultation on the project until April 2017;

·     Finding a solution that would meet the principles in the Community Strategy;

·     That alternative solutions be assessed against the risk matrix in the Community Strategy;

·     Possible revision of the project budget based on harbour discharge to allow for land based solutions;

·     For Council to take a collaborative approach with the community on this project.        

5.2       Action Required

5.2.1   The Board decided to establish a Working Party which would include members from the wider community and the Council, to collaborate with the community and engage on community concerns about the project.  The Working Party is meeting weekly.

5.3       Timeframe

Council must report back to the Environment Court by 30 June 2017. The Working Party must complete its work by early March to ensure its input is incorporated into the consultation process.

Public Use of Akaroa Wharf  

5.4       Status

5.4.1   At the Board’s 13 February 2017 meeting, Victoria Andrews addressed the Board regarding the loss of public space on the Akaroa Wharf. Ms Andrews requested that:

·    The Community Board request funding for reinstatement of Fisherman’s Landing in its submission on the Annual Plan / Long Term Plan.

·    The Council state that no fuelling is allowed on Akaroa Wharf between 8.30am-6pm while the Wharf is in use by members of the public.

·    Staff carry out due diligence when dealing with issues that affect Akaroa and Banks Peninsula. The Community Board should be kept well informed through detailed and informative staff reports.

·    No further changes, alterations, additions or change of use be made to Akaroa Wharf until all parties including ratepayers have been consulted.

5.5       Action Required

5.5.1   In order to progress this matter, the Banks Peninsula Community Board requests that staff report back in one month on the following:

§ Information identifying all of the issues, including historic and legal matters, regarding structures, buildings and the use of public space on the Akaroa Wharf.

§ Legal consideration of the current situation and how this has occurred, and ways in which this might be resolved.

§ Options for next steps, including legal remedies, and development of a management plan or similar.

§ A timeline of consenting, ownership, leasing, licensing and similar, by the Council and other bodies including the Regional Council.

§ That staff identify ways of working with users of the Akaroa Wharf to encourage cooperation between users.

§ Information on signage, including the application of style and design guidelines, the Akaroa Historic Area rules, and whether the signs are currently compliant with these.

§ In relation to the signage structures, ramps and canopies, consideration of whether these are:

·    In compliance with the building consent and Bylaw requirements.

·    Licensed to occupy the space. (If this is not the case what steps can be taken or have been taken to bring about compliance, including information on decision making process.)

§ Answers to each of the specific questions raised in the deputation.

5.5.2   An update on any progress on the refuelling issue raised in the deputation.

5.6       Timeframe

Staff to report back to the Board by 13 March 2017 on the above actions.

       Allandale Hall Repair and Allandale Reserve   

5.7       Status

5.7.1   Governance staff have liaised between capital programme staff and the local Reserve Management Committee to reach a good outcome for the repairs to the hall.

5.8       Action Required

5.8.1   Board consultation has taken place and now the Allandale Reserve Management Committee is working closely with the Project Manager on the detailed design and specifications.

5.9       Timeframe

Repairs are estimated to be completed by end of 2017.

       Diamond Harbour Village Planning

5.10    Status

5.10.1 The Council allocated $15,000 in the Annual Plan 2015/16 to the Diamond Harbour Community Association for village planning.

Council staff have helped support and facilitate this planning process which has been very strongly led by the Community Association. 

Staff have completed the updated Action Plan document, which sets out the process to date and the nine project briefs.  This has been sent to the Community Association for its review and edit based upon the continuing community feedback they are receiving. 

The Village Plan “Getting to the Point,” and the updated Action Plan are community-owned documents.

5.11    Action Required

5.11.1 Community members and Council staff will brief the Board at its seminar on 27 March 2017. The Board will consider supporting Annual Plan/Long Term Plan funding for priority projects.

5.12    Timeframe – 27 March 2017.

       Little River – Big Ideas Village Plan

5.13    Status

5.13.1 The Council allocated $15,000 in the Annual Plan 2015/16 to the Little River community for village planning.

The community driven Little River – Big Ideas Village Plan was received by the Banks Peninsula Community Board at the December 2016 Board meeting.

The Plan has good coverage and buy in from the local community, Council staff and stakeholder and local organisations. 

5.14    Action Required

5.14.1 Work is underway to implement strategic projects in the plan, under the umbrella of the Little River Wairewa Community Trust with community leads beginning to form.

 

5.15    Timeframe – Ongoing.

       Reserve Management Committees

5.16    Status

5.16.1 After two well attended meetings in 2016 to discuss potential changes in the way Reserve Management Committees are run in Banks Peninsula, Council staff continue to work with the Committees to ensure efficient working relationships and community influenced management of Council Reserves.

As subcommittees of the Community Board, all fifteen Reserve Management Committees are required to hold public meetings to elect their members and office bearers each triennium after the new Community Boards are elected. 

Two induction workshops will be held in March for these members to help them in their roles and responsibilities.

5.17    Action Required

5.17.1 Council staff continue to work with the Reserve Management Committees to ensure efficient working relationships and community influenced management of Council Reserves.

5.18    Timeframe

             Two inductions will be held in late-March 2017.

       Baden Norris Reserve, Lyttelton    

5.19    Status

Baden Norris Reserve in Lyttelton has been closed since the earthquakes. The walking track through the Reserve which connects London Street and Sumner Road has been repaired and is now open for use.

5.20    Action Required

5.20.1 Further investigation is required by Parks and Heritage staff of the whole Reserve, including repair of the Donald Street stables and additional tracks.

6.   Significant Community Issues

       Cruise Ship Levy Proposal     

6.1       Status

6.1.1   At the Board meeting on the 13 February 2017, Mr de Latour requested that the Board support raising a targeted $5 levy per cruise ship passenger to partially fund a new health facility in Akaroa.

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   That the Banks Peninsula Community Board:

·    Refer this matter for consideration as part of the Board’s Annual Plan 2017/18 / Long Term Plan 2018/28 submission preparation.

·    Request that staff supply information regarding passenger usage of existing health facilities in Akaroa.

6.3       Timeframe – April 2017.

       Wasps on the Peninsula        

6.4       Status

6.4.1   Governance staff supported community activation for reducing the wasp population in the Little River/Akaroa area. This involved facilitating work among the community, Environment Canterbury, Banks Peninsula Conservation Trust and the Little River Wairewa Community Trust. A meeting was held in December 2016 and community leads were confirmed. 

6.5       Action Required

6.5.1   Environment Canterbury will support the community leads by being directed by them to the hot spots within the area and also provide technical support for locals wanting to implement the poisoning programme themselves.

6.6       TimeframeOngoing.

       Civil Defence        

6.7       Status

6.7.1   Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) in Christchurch is reviewing how it works with its community volunteers. This is as part of a planned process that predated the Kaikoura earthquake sequence.

 
This has had impact on local teams to reinforce volunteers’ status as well trained and vetted volunteers; the training programme which requires volunteers’ skills are proficient and which is now organised by each team; it also has implications for CDEM communications conduits.

Late last year, it was decided that teams would be clustered.  Six city teams were clustered into three, the three Lyttelton Harbour teams are now operating as one cluster as are the teams in Akaroa and Wairewa.  Thus, the Banks Peninsula Community Board area has two clusters of teams.

6.8       Action Required

Continue to work with CDEM and community volunteers.

6.9       Timeframe – Ongoing.

      

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       A progress report against the Community Board Plan will be presented quarterly. The next report will be presented in May 2017.

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

Akaroa Issues Working Party       

8.1       The Akaroa Issues Working Party was established by the Community Board to address long term maintenance issues in Akaroa Township. This collaborative approach, involving community volunteers and elected members and supported by staff, has made significant progress in resolving many of these outstanding issues. Positive community feedback has been received.

Community Board Annual Plan Engagement

 

8.2       The Board is keen to use the opportunity of engagement on the Annual Plan to also look forward and get early input from the community for the Community Board Plan and the Long Term Plan. The Board will host four community meetings around the Peninsula to get input on these matters.

 

Rainbow Youth Mardi Gras

 

8.3       The Banks Peninsula Community Board has initiated and part-funded an event to celebrate young people, especially those from the rainbow (LGBTI) communities.

Q-topia are organising this event which is the first of its kind in Christchurch. There will be live music, DJs, poets, dance groups and fun activities for younger family members to participate in. A warm welcome is extended to all Councillors to attend this event which will take place on Friday 10th March, 5 – 8 pm at Lyttelton’s Albion Square.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 12 December 2016

397

b

Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 30 January 2017

408

c

Banks Peninsula Community Board Minutes - 13 February 2017

414

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

21.    Delegations for Major Cycleway Route (MCR) Programme

Reference:

17/181217

Contact:

Lynette Ellis

lynette.ellis@ccc.govt.nz

941-6285

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend the Council gives delegated authority to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme for the purpose of progressing the delivery of the MCR projects.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the fact that the MCR programme has been designated a metropolitan project.

2.1.2   While the level of significance for this report has been determined as high, the level for the individual projects along the routes are of medium significance.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee the authority to make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme, including final route selections and anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property.

2.         Notes that it previously designated the MCR programme a metropolitan project, as set out in the Council’s resolutions on 29 January 2015.

13.4 Agree to the Major Cycleway Route programme being declared a Metropolitan Programme and that the Council make the final decisions.

3.         Notes the Council’s previous adoption in principle of the MCR route selections, as set out in the Council’s resolutions on 29 January 2015.

13.7 Adopt in principle the route selection recommendations and refer the final decision to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee noting the route selections as detailed below will be referred to the affected community boards for recommendations from the affected Community Board prior to and after public consultation then approval by the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee

4.         Notes that the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee and affected community boards have been, or will be, advised prior to any public consultation commencing on any MCR project.

5.         Notes that all route selections have been, or will be, referred to the affected community boards for their recommendations prior to and after consultation and prior to approval by the Committee.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Major Cycleways

·     Level of Service: 10.5.3 Increase the number of cycling trips

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Delegate authority to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee the authority to make all decisions in connection with the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Confirm that all decisions relating to the MCR programme should be referred to full Council for a final decision.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reflects the previous delegations held by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee which were well understood and functioned well.

·     It means that public deputations on each MCR route will not need to be heard by the Council.

·     Removes the uncertainty for the MCR Delivery Team on how to progress the MCR programme.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Decisions on the MCR programme will be made at Committee level and will not be debated by full Council.

 

5.   Context/Background

Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) Programme

5.1       The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan has an overarching objective to create a balanced network that includes the provision of facilities that support a modal shift to cycling.

5.2       To this end the MCR programme aims to provide a complete and connected network of cycle facilities that will attract the interested but concerned user group.  These include the following routes:

·   Papanui Parallel

·   Little River Link

·   Quarryman’s Trail

·   Uni-Cycle

·   Rapanui to Shag Rock Cycleway

·   Northern Line Cycleway

·   Heathcote Expressway

·   NorWest Arc

·   Southern Lights

·   South Express

·   Wheels to Wings

·   Opawaho River Route

·   Avon-Otakaro Route

5.3       It has been recognised that the delivery of the MCR programme is complex in both design and stakeholder management.  As such it has been important to ensure streamlined and consistent approach to decision making across ward boundaries.

5.4       Seven of the Council’s MCRs have attracted a total of $20 million in funding from the government’s Urban Cycleways Programme (UCP).  Because the government’s focus is on delivery, one of the criteria to be met for receiving this funding is that construction on the funded sections of these seven routes must be completed by 30 June 2018.

5.5       Funded sections for four of these routes are currently under construction (Little River, Papanui, Rapanui and Uni Cycle). Approval to proceed to design and construction has been given for sections covering two further routes (Northern Line and Quarryman’s). Urgent approval to proceed is required for the Heathcote route and another section of the Rapanui route. The traffic regulations required to make the various cycle ways legal will require ongoing approval as they are constructed.                  

Previous Decision Making

5.6       At its meeting on 29 January 2015 the Council agreed to the MCR programme being declared a metropolitan project. All decision-making powers of the Council in connection with the matter were delegated to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

5.7       This committee was also deemed to be discharged following the elections.  This means the Council will have to make those decisions itself until such time as a replacement body is established and given the appropriate delegated authority.

5.8       Prior to the elections the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee had heard staff submissions, community views and deputations and made decisions on the following routes:

·   Papanui Parallel

·   Little River Trail

·   Quarryman’s Trail

·   Rapanui Shag Rock section 1

·   Uni Cycle

5.9       Numbers of deputations for these projects have ranged between 10 and 25 per route and significant time was required to debate the concerns raised and formulate a decision.

5.10    At the Council meeting on 8 December 2016, Council resolved to establish an interim committee for the purpose of progressing Northern Line and Quarryman’s Trail. The Councillors of the affected wards were the members of the committee.  This was an interim committee until the establishment of the formal committee structure.

Current Situation

5.11    The MCR Delivery Team currently have two routes that require decisions on route selection and design treatments.  The two routes are Heathcote Expressway and Rapanui to Shag Rock Section 2&3.  Decisions are required on or before mid-April 2017 to ensure delivery time frames are met and government UCP funding is realised.

5.12    In developing the options for this report, one possibility was to delegate decisions to the relevant Community Boards.  As most of the routes traverse multiple wards and more than one board this was not considered a viable option to maintain consistency and connectivity across the network.  This was also considered inconsistent with the designation of the MCR programme as a metropolitan project.

5.13    There is the potential need to acquire property that may encroach into the proposed route. Staff are aware that clause 32(1)(c) section 7 of the LGA 2002 prevents the Council from delegating the power to purchase or dispose of assets (including property) other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

5.14    The Council’s 2015/25 LTP does not make provision for property transactions of this nature. However clause 32(2) allows the Council to delegate to a committee the power to do anything required to be done before the Council considers whether or not to purchase an asset.


 

6.   Option 1 – Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee MCR decision making (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council delegates responsibility for all decisions relating to the Major Cycleway Routes (MCR) programme to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, including anything precedent to the exercise by the Council of its power to acquire any property.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is high 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       The purpose of the resolution is to ensure that community views and preferences are sought and heard in a timely manner.

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, maintenance costs and funding source are defined at the point that each project is put forward for a decision.

Legal Implications

6.8       Under the LGA 2002, Council is able to delegate powers to a committee or other body in the interests of efficiency and managing its decision making process.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.9       The risk implications for decisions on each route are defined at the point that each project is put forward for a decision.

Implementation

6.10    Implementation dependencies  - none

6.11    Implementation timeframe – immediately

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reflects the previous delegations held by the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee which were well understood and functioned well.

·   It means that public deputations will not need to be heard by the Council.

·   Removes the uncertainty for the MCR Delivery Team on how to progress the MCR programme.

·   It will support the current aggressive delivery programme to realise the UCP funding requirements.

6.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   All of Council do not have the opportunity to debate decisions relating to the MCR programme.

7.   Option 2 – Council MCR Decision Making

Option Description

7.1       The Council does not delegate responsibility for all decisions relating to the MCR programme to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is high 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       The purpose of the resolution is to ensure that community views and preferences are sought and heard in a timely manner. This option may not achieve that result.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation, maintenance costs and funding source are defined at the point that each project is put forward for a decision.

Legal Implications

7.8       There are no legal implications with this options as it requires Council to make all decisions relating to the MCR programme.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.9       The risk implications for decisions on each route are defined at the point that each project is put forward for a decision.

 

Implementation

7.10    Implementation dependencies  - none

7.11    Implementation timeframe – immediately

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   All of Council will be able to debate all decisions relating to the MCR programme.

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   As this programme of works is designated a metropolitan project all decisions sit with Council and not Community Boards.  Decision making for this programme will be time consuming.

·   Delivery timeframes may be put at risk if decisions are delayed. This will put at risk government UCP 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

Authors

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Clarrie Pearce - Senior Project Manager

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

   

 


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

22.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Council

09 March 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

23

South Brighton Motor Camp - New Operator and Lease

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities

This report is witheld to protect the commercial sensitivity of the associated operator and transaction.

Upon lease commencement

24

Public Excluded Coastal-Burwood Community Board Minutes - 20 February 2017

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

25

Development Christchurch Limited - Peterborough Quarter Briefing

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Conduct Negotiations

Commercial information

-

26

Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub Stage 1 Athletics Track & Associated Facilities  - Award of Design & Construction Contract

s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i)

Prejudice Commercial Position, Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations

Commercial sensitivity around tendered prices and publication of the information will prejudice the commercial position of the Respondent.

The name of the contractor will be released upon appointment and once the contractual negotiations have been completed

The report will be released after30 June 2019.

LGOIMA request, with possible redactions (Legal Advice to be sought prior to release)

27

State Highway Business Case

s7(2)(c)(i)

Protection of Source of Information

Business Case is draft and will be released for public consultation when it is progressed further.

When there is public consultation on the matter.