Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 14 March 2017

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

9 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

Gary.Watson@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

B       6.       Notice of Motion - PM Liquors Limited ...................................................................... 13

B       7.       Notice of Motion - Central Riccarton Related Issues ................................................ 15   

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       Delamain Residents' Association - Recognition.......................................................... 17

A       9.       Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated....................... 29

C       10.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Proposed Road Names - Various Subdivisions 37

C       11.     Aidanfield Drive - Pedestrian Facility........................................................................... 49

C       12.     Aurora Street Access Way - Proposed Closure........................................................... 55

C       13.     Sonter Road/Hayton Road Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions....... 77

C       14.     52 Hayton Road - Proposed P10 Parking Restriction and No Stopping Lines.......... 83

C       15.     338 to 340 Riccarton Road - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions............................. 89

C       16.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Technical Support re Funeral Home Resource Consent Application 95

B       17.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - March 2017.............. 99

B       18.     Elected Members Information Exchange................................................................... 125

B       19.     Questions Under Standing Orders............................................................................. 125 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 28 February 2017, be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Philip Haythorthwaite, on behalf of the Disabled Persons Assembly, has been granted speaking rights regarding the Aurora Street Access Way – Proposed Closure (Item 11 refers).

 

4.2

Dean Palmer, of Duncan Cotterill Lawyers, will address the Board on behalf of his clients RG Elliott and Estate PO Elliott, regarding the Sonter Road/Hayton Road Intersection – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (Item 12 refers).

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 28 February 2017

Time:                                    4.32pm

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

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Debbie  Mora

 

 

28 February 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/Council/meetingminutes/agendas/index

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00072

That the apology for absence from Ross McFarlane, and the apology for lateness from Vicki Buck, be accepted.

Anne Galloway/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                        Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00073

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 14 February 2017, be confirmed.

Natalie Bryden/Mike Mora                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

 

 

6.   Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00074

Part B

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1.         Receive the correspondence from the Templeton Residents’ Association regarding the playground equipment at the Templeton Domain.

2.         Request from staff updated demographics for the Templeton  area.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

Vicki Buck arrived at 4:40pm.

 

7.   Wigram East Retention Basin Extension - Tree Removals

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and responded to questions from members.

The Board supported the staff recommendation but with the additions made to clause 4 below, as shown in bold.  

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00075

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1.         Approve the removal of 84 exotic specimen trees and approximately 24,750 m² of mass vegetation areas containing native and exotic tree species to allow the Land Drainage Recovery Programme Wigram Basin Extension project to be fully implemented.

2.         Approve the removal of 76 exotic specimen trees to allow Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub project to be fully implemented.

3.         Acknowledge that 95 trees that are in a poor or very poor condition will be removed under the delegation provided to the Head of Parks.

4.         Note that the replacement planting of both exotic trees and mass native vegetation areas will take place to increase the overall vegetated area, with replanting to take place where possible, and a landscape plan identifying these areas to be presented to the Board for approval.

Mike Mora/Anne Galloway                                                                                                                                    Carried

 


 

 

8.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17 - Application - Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $6,900 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2016-17 to the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library for the carrying out of a feasibility study into a facility upgrade.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00076

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolves to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of up to $6,900 from its Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17 to the Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library for the carrying out of a building inspection/engineering report and to undertake minor repairs, in collaboration with Council staff.

Mike Mora/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

9.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Governance Arrangements 2017

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Adopt the following dates for its ordinary meetings for the balance of 2017:

Tuesday 14 March 2017             4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 28 March 2017             4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 11 April 2017                 4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Wednesday 26 April 2017         5.30pm       Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner

                                                                                  Jeffreys and Clyde Roads

Tuesday 9 May 2017                   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 23 May 2017                 4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 13 June 2017                4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 27 June 2017                4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 11 July 2017                  4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 25 July 2017                  4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 8 August 2017              4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 22 August 2017            4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 12 September 2017   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 26 September 2017   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 10 October 2017         4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 24 October 2017         4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 14 November 2017    4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 28 November 2017    4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 12 December 2017     4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

2.         Approve that the second ordinary monthly meeting of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be followed by a Seminar and/or Workshop.       

3.         Establish a Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee, as follows:

·     The Terms of Reference are to respond on behalf of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to submission opportunities as they arise throughout the present term.

·    Helen Broughton, Natalie Bryden, Catherine Chu, Ross McFarlane, Debbie Mora, Mike Mora be appointed as members to the Submissions Committee.

·    The Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to be appointed by the Submissions Committee.

·     Where timeframes necessitate such action being required, the Submissions Committee be granted the delegated authority to lodge submissions on behalf of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

·     Any submissions made by the Submissions Committee to be reported to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for record purposes.

4.         Informally connect with local groups and organisations in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards on matters of mutual interest on the Tuesday of the Council’s monthly community week, generally from 4pm to 6pm.                                               

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00077

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolves to:

1.         Adopt the following dates for its ordinary meetings for the balance of 2017:

Tuesday 14 March 2017             4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 28 March 2017             4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 11 April 2017                 4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Wednesday 26 April 2017         5.30pm       Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner

                                                                                  Jeffreys and Clyde Roads

Tuesday 9 May 2017                   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 23 May 2017                 4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 13 June 2017                4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 27 June 2017                4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 11 July 2017                  4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 25 July 2017                  4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 8 August 2017              4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 22 August 2017            4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 12 September 2017   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 26 September 2017   4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 10 October 2017         4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 24 October 2017         4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 14 November 2017    4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 28 November 2017    4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

Tuesday 12 December 2017     4.30pm       Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

2.         Approve that the ordinary meetings of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will be followed by a Seminar and/or Workshop.

3.         Establish a Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee, as follows:

·     The Terms of Reference are to respond on behalf of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to submission opportunities as they arise throughout the present term.

·    Helen Broughton, Natalie Bryden, Catherine Chu, Ross McFarlane, Debbie Mora, Mike Mora be appointed as members to the Submissions Committee.

·    The Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to be appointed by the Submissions Committee.

·     Where timeframes necessitate such action being required, the Submissions Committee be granted the delegated authority to lodge submissions on behalf of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

·     Any submissions made by the Submissions Committee to be reported to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for record purposes.

Mike Mora/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

Community Board Recommendation

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

4.         Informally meet as Board members on matters of mutual interest on the Tuesday of the Council’s monthly community week, generally from 4pm to 6pm and that this be reviewed in four months’ time. 

Mike Mora/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                               Lost

 

10. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

Board members exchanged information on matters of current interest.

 

11. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders.

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.32pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

6.        Notice of Motion - PM Liquors Limited – 76 Riccarton Road

Reference:

17/214732

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.10.1 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion is submitted by Mike Mora:

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.    Support the community in its opposition to a liquor licence application from PM Liquor Limited at 76 Riccarton Road, and request the leave of the Chairperson of the Christchurch District Licensing Committee for a Board Member to appear at the hearing on this application in support of the community.

2.    Appoint a Board member to represent the Board at the Christchurch District Licensing Committee hearing on 16 March 2017.

 

 

1.   Recommendation to Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decide to:

1.         Accept for consideration, the Notice of Motion from Mike Mora regarding the matter of supporting the community in its opposition to a liquor licence application from PM Liquor Limited at 76 Riccarton Road.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

7.        Notice of Motion - Central Riccarton Related Issues

Reference:

17/241790

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

Pursuant to Section 3.10.1 of Christchurch City Council’s Standing Orders, the following Notice of Motion is submitted by Helen Broughton:

1.    That a swing and a slide be provided for younger children at the Picton Avenue Reserve and that Council staff be requested to work with the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association to determine an appropriate location.

Note: The nature of this area has changed dramatically - many migrants with young children.

2.    That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board notify the Council’s Head Librarian of the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association's concerns regarding the timing and location of the mobile library service.

3.    That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recognises that there are ongoing concerns regarding antisocial behaviour in the area around the Riccarton Bus Exchange and further, that the Board notes minor changes are being made but there may be a need to request an ongoing police presence in the future.

 

1.   Recommendation to Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decide to:

1.         Accepts for consideration, the Notice of Motion from Helen Broughton on Central Riccarton related issues.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

8.        Delamain Residents' Association - Recognition

Reference:

17/184287

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated as a result of an application received from the proposed Delamain Residents’ Association.

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.

1.1.1          2.2 The level of significance was determined by taking into account the localised area that the options involve.

1.1.2          2.3 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.

 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Recognise the Delamain Residents’ Association under the Council’s Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

2.         Recognise the following boundaries for the Delamain Residents’ Association:

a.         West of the western boundary of Broomfield Common, from Buchanans Road to the Paparua Stream.

b.         North of Gilberthorpes Road, from the western boundary of Broomfield Common to the western boundary of Delamain Park.

c.         East of the western boundary of Delamain Park, from Gilberthorpes Road to the northern boundary of Delamain Park.

d.         South of a line along the northern boundary of Delamain Park and extending behind the properties on the north side of Ferdinand Terrace, and on the north side of the shared driveway extending east from Ferdinand Terrace, and then south to the Paparua Stream, and along that stream to the western boundary of Broomfield Common.

3.         Appoint a Board member and an alternate, as its representative on the Delamian Residents’ Association for the remainder of the 2016/19 term.

 

3.   Key Points

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

3.1.1   Activity: Public Participation in Community and City Governance and Decision Making

·     Level of Service: 4.1.9 Percentage of residents that feel they can participate in and contribute to Council decision making

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

1.1.3          Option 1 – Approve the Delamain Residents’ Association as a recognised residents’ group in accordance with the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy (preferred option).

1.1.4          Option 2 – Do not approve the Delamain Residents’ Association as a recognised residents’ group under the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

1.1.5          Option 3 – Delay formal recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association as a resident's group under the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

1.1.6          The advantages of this option include:

·    The organisation will provide a voice for the residents of the identified area to the Council, to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and other agencies on issues of significance and interest to the community.

·    The Council and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will have an avenue in which to communicate with the residents in the identified area.

·    The Delamain Residents’ Association will be granted status as a recognised Residents’ Association under the Council’s Resident's Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

·    The Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association will have a smaller area of coverage and therefore be in a better position to place its efforts in a more concentrated area.

1.1.7          The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The Gilberthorpes Residents’ Association will need to alter its boundaries as part of its constitutional requirement at the forthcoming Annual General Meeting.

·    There will be two recognised groups with some shared boundary for a period of approximately five months.

 

4.   Context/Background

Request for recognition

4.1       A request has been received for recognition from representatives of a group seeking to form a Delamain Residents’ Association.  Under the Council’s current Residents’ Association Recognition Policy (2001) groups need to seek recognition from their respective Community Board including approval for their boundaries.

4.2       This request has arisen as a result of a resident forming a group that represents the interests of the people living in the area to the north of Buchanans Road, between Broomfield Common and Delamain Park.

Background

4.3       In October 2008, the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board granted recognition to the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association.  Part of the boundaries of the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association included the area to the north of Buchanans Road, which at that stage was undeveloped.  The thought at the time was that when properties were developed, residents may have some desire to have formal representation and the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association may be able to assist with this.

4.4       The Delamain area has since undergone subdivision with over 400 properties so far being developed with further development planned.  Local residents, instead of coming under the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association, formed a 'Delamain Action Group' to concentrate on concerns with planning issues in 2013.  It was thought that this group may form into a residents group however this did not eventuate at that time.

4.5       In 2016, new residents to the area who had been involved in a residents association in eastern Christchurch, felt that a group that concentrated specifically on the Delamain area was needed. Following a notice on the Neighbourly website, interested residents distributed a flyer to gauge interest.  A small steering group was formed and called a public meeting, advertising it to all dwellings in Delamain.  This resulted in a turnout of around fifty people.  The meeting unanimously resolved that the existing planning group continue with working on becoming a residents’ association in the form of an incorporated society.  They are currently working on attaining incorporation status.

4.6       A number of issues and activities of interest for the future have been identified and discussed including:

·    The future of the Yaldhurst Village Development

·    The proposed Luney residential subdivision to the south of Buchanans Road

·    The protection and enhancement of the amenity provided by the Paparua Stream

·    The protection and enhancement of the amenities provided by Broomfield Common and Delamain Park

·    Quarrying proposals

Boundary

4.7       The area that the proposed Delamain Residents’ Association wishes to cover is as follows:

·    West of the western boundary of Broomfield Common, from Buchanans Road to the Paparua Stream.

·    North of Gilberthorpes Road, from the western boundary of Broomfield Common to the western boundary of Delamain Park.

·    East of the western boundary of Delamain Park, from Gilberthorpes Road to the northern boundary of Delamain Park.

·    South of a line along the northern boundary of Delamain Park and extending behind the properties on the north side of Ferdinand Terrace, and on the north side of the shared driveway extending east from Ferdinand Terrace, and then south to the Paparua Stream, and along that Stream to the western boundary of Broomfield Common.

4.8       The above areas are marked on Attachment 1 in blue.

4.9       As mentioned in 4.3 above, part of the area defined is currently covered by the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association.  This area is marked in Attachment 1 in red and broadly covers from Yaldhurst Road through to Roberts Road, Gilberthorpes Road and through to Pound Road.

4.10    While the Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy does not specifically stipulate that any geographical area should only be recognised as being covered by one group, this has been the preferred direction in order to eliminate duplication and silos.  To avoid this, negotiation is sought between the different groups over areas of coverage when boundaries are defined.  The Policy states that "Community Boards decide boundaries for Residents' Associations taking their views into account when doing so." (refer Attachment 2)

4.11    Correspondence has been sent to the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association seeking agreement to have its area, as included in 4.7 above, removed from its area of coverage.  Different options of redefining the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association boundaries have been provided to them which would enable the defined area to be covered by the Delamain Residents’ Association. Verbally, they have agreed that it is more practical that the defined area is covered by the new group.  However, the changing of the boundaries cannot be done until their Annual General Meeting.

4.12    There is a further option of delaying the recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association until the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association hold its Annual General Meeting in July 2017.  It is at this meeting that the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association intends to formally change its boundaries and alter its constitution accordingly.

4.13    While it is ideal that there be only one group per geographic area, given the fact that the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association have not been active in the defined area, and have verbally agreed to this change, recognition is sought at this stage as a preferred option.  This would provide the Delamain Residents’ Association more certainty in their future planning.


 

5.   Option 1 - Approve Recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association (preferred)

Option Description

5.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recognises the Delamain Residents’ Association under the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy and recognises the boundaries as follows:

·    West of the western boundary of Broomfield Common, from Buchanans Road to the Paparua Stream.

·    North of Gilberthorpes Road, from the western boundary of Broomfield Common to the western boundary of Delamain Park.

·    East of the western boundary of Delamain Park, from Gilberthorpes Road to the northern boundary of Delamain Park.

·    South of a line along the northern boundary of Delamain Park and extending behind the properties on the north side of Ferdinand Terrace, and on the north side of the shared driveway extending east from Ferdinand Terrace, and then south to the Paparua Stream, and along that stream to the western boundary of Broomfield Common.

Significance

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

5.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are localised engagement within the community concerned.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

5.5       Residents living in the Delamain area are specifically affected by this option.  Their views have been canvassed by the group concerned through flyers and an invitation to attend a public meeting.  The attendance figure of 50 people at the meeting of an area of approximately 400 dwellings and the unanimous support of the proposal to form a residents’ group, would suggest that there is strong community support for this.

5.6       The views of the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association have been sought as the proposed boundaries falls into the area covered by this group. They have verbally agreed that this option is more practical and plan to alter their boundaries at the Annual General Meeting in accordance with its constitutional requirements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

5.8       Cost of Implementation – There is no cost to the Council for implementation of this decision.

5.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – The Delamain Residents’ Association may have costs that it may wish to apply to the Council for in the same way that other residents’ groups have done. 

5.10    Funding source – The Delamain Residents’ Association will be able to apply to the Council's funding streams including the Strengthening Communities Fund, Small Grants Fund and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board's Discretionary Response Fund, in the same manner as other community organisations.

Legal Implications

5.11    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

5.12    It is anticipated that there is no risk to the Council for this option.

Implementation

5.13    Implementation dependencies - the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association agreeing to the alteration of boundaries at its Annual General Meeting.

5.14    Implementation timeframe – the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association Annual General Meeting is usually held in July.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

5.15    The advantages of this option include:

·    The organisation will provide a voice for the residents of the identified area to the Council, the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and other agencies on issues of significance and interest to the community.

·    The Council and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board will have an avenue with which to communicate with the residents in the identified area.

·    The Delamain Residents’ Association will be granted status as a recognised residents’ association in accordance with the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy.

·    The Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association will have a smaller area of coverage and therefore be in a better position to place its efforts in a more concentrated area.

5.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The Gilberthorpes Residents’ Association will need to change its boundaries as part of their constitutional process at its Annual General Meeting.

·    There will be two recognised groups with shared boundary for a short period of approximately five months.

6.   Option 2 – Do Not Approve Recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association

Option Description

6.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board do not recognise the Delamain Residents’ Association.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low.

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are localised engagement within the community concerned.

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       Residents living in the Delamain area are specifically affected by this option.  Their views have been canvassed by the group concerned through flyers and invitation to attend a public meeting.  The attendance figure of 50 people at the meeting of an area of approximately 400 dwellings and unanimous support of the proposal to form a residents group would suggest that there is strong community support for this.

6.6       The views of the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association have been sought as the proposed boundaries falls into the area covered by the group. They have verbally agreed that this option is more practical and plan to alter their boundaries at its Annual General Meeting in accordance with its constitutional requirements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies:

1.1.8          Inconsistency – the Council’s Residents’ Association Formation and Recognition Policy supports the formation of residents’ groups.

1.1.9          Reason for inconsistency – residents in this area have expressed to have a residents’ group that specifically covers their area.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable

6.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

6.10    Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.11    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

6.12    Nil

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.14    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·    One group, the already established Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association, will cover the area.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    A group of people who wish to represent the area they live in as a residents’ group will not be able to formally have their group recognised by the Council.

·    The defined area will be covered officially by a group that is not active in its area.

7.   Option 3 – Delay Recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association

Option Description

7.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board choose to delay the recognition of the Delamain Residents’ Association until after the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association has held its  Annual General meeting in July and formally changed its boundaries.

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 localised engagement within the defined communities.

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       Residents living in the Delamain area are specifically affected by this option.  Their views have been canvassed by the group concerned through flyers and an invitation to attend a public meeting.  The attendance figure of 50 people at the meeting of an area of approximately 400 dwellings and unanimous support of the proposal to form a residents group would suggest that there is strong community support for this.

7.6       The views of the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association have been sought as the proposed boundaries falls into the area covered by the group. They have verbally agreed that this option is more practical and plan to alter their boundaries at their Annual General Meeting in accordance with its constitutional requirements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – There is no cost to the Council for implementation of this decision.

7.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – The Delamain Residents’ Association may have costs that it may wish to apply to the Council for in the same way that other residents’ groups do.

7.10    Funding source – The Delamain Residents’ Association will be able to apply to the Council's funding streams including the Strengthening Communities Fund, Small Grants Fund and the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board's Discretionary Response Fund in the same manner as other community organisations.

Legal Implications

7.11    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

7.12    Not applicable

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association agreeing to the alteration of their boundaries at its Annual General Meeting.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association Annual General Meeting is usually held in July.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·    There will be only one group covering the geographical area.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    A level of uncertainty for the Delamain Residents’ Association which may hinder future planning until the Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association holds its Annual General Meeting.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Delamain Residents' Association Boundaries

26

b

Council Residents' Association Formation and Recognition Policy 2001

27

 

 

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

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

 



Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

9.        Ruapuna Park - Lease of Part to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

Reference:

17/47630

Contact:

Jeff Woodham

jeff.woodham@ccc.govt.nz

941 8771

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to recommend to the Council that a lease be granted to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over an area of Ruapuna Park which has historically been and is currently occupied by them.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by staff evaluation against the criteria in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as follows:

·     Number of people affected and/or with an interest – there is a distinct group of motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international, who would be affected by the proposed new lease decision. The local residents would also be affected by the proposed new lease decision.

·     Level of community interest for the issue, proposal or decision, or the potential to generate community interest – in the past there has been interest in the issues at Ruapuna Motorsport Park. When Plan Change 52 was proposed there were 41 submissions received. Chapter 21.10 Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone of the Christchurch District Plan attracted three submissions.

·     Possible environmental, social and cultural impacts - local residents have been pro-active through Quieter Please (Templeton) Incorporated, over noise and usage days which culminated in an Environment Court decision, the outcome of the Court decision has now been incorporated in the Christchurch District Plan.

·     Possible benefits/opportunities to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision – events held at the Ruapuna Motorsport Park contribute to local tourism in the form of out of town competitors and spectators attendance. Such events often attract television exposure for the City of Christchurch.

·     Whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed – the financial ramifications of breaking a lease (once granted) and re-establishing the raceway in another location would be significant. Re-establishing in another location would involve further consultation.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         That it publicly advertise the proposal to grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over that part of Ruapuna Park where the raceway is situated, an area of approximately 39.9751 hectares, contained in Lot 1 DP 323836, classified as Recreation Reserve and shown on Attachment A, RPS856-42.

2.         That in the event that there are objections that cannot be satisfied, then staff are authorised to convene a Hearings Panel to consider any such objections and making a recommendation back to the Council for a decision.

3.         That in the event that there are no unresolved objections, then:

a.         In its capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, the Council resolve to give consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Reserves Act 1977.

b.         Delegated authority is granted to the Property Consultancy Manager to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions including, but not limited to c. and d. below.

c.         Finalising lease documentation to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental to be negotiated.

d.         Granting permission to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated to enter into hire and sublease arrangements for utilisation of the grounds and buildings contained within the lease area specifically to Canterbury Racing School as well as other user groups on terms and conditions to be approved by the Property Consultancy Manager, on behalf of the Council.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Recreation and Sports Facilities

·     Level of Service: 7.0.2 Provide well utilised facility-based recreation and sporting programmes and activities

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Continue to utilise the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·     Continue the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·     Recognises the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The noise issue for the local residents will remain in the same location, albeit now with stricter rules under the Christchurch District Plan.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current use and Lease

5.1       Ruapuna Park is located to the west of the city at 107 Hasketts Road, in an area containing rural and residential activities and further afield, the Templeton Golf Course, a quarry, Paparua Prison and the residential areas of Templeton and Yaldhurst. The park provides a venue for a variety of motorsport and other activities, occupying 55 hectares of Crown Reserve which is administered by the Christchurch City Council.  The speedway was established in April 1962 and the racetrack in November 1963. The racetrack is the larger of the two tracks.

5.2       The ground on which the race track is located, is leased to, and operated by, the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated, with the lease expiring in December 2016.  Negotiations on a new lease have been underway for some time, but have only recently advanced to a point where it can be recommended to the Council that it considers proceeding to consultation.  The occupancy has continued under “roll over” provisions.

5.3       The Club sub-leases land to the Canterbury Motor Racing School until March 2017, who in turn sublease to Aristotle Enterprises until December 2016.  The Council agreed to the subleases in 2002 and 2004 respectively.  While the expiry dates for the subleases are after the expiration of the head lease, they are still valid.

5.4       The racetrack operates on an almost daily basis, with a mixture of uses ranging from bicycle races to competitive motor racing.  Weekdays are generally practice sessions, driver training, or open hire days, with most race events taking place in the weekends.

Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan

5.5       Objective - Motorsport

·   Ruapuna Motorsport Park continues to operate as a facility of regional importance servicing motorsport, as well as training and recreational activities, whilst ensuring the adverse noise effects of activities at the Park on the surrounding community and environment are effectively managed to not increase and, if practicable, are reduced.

5.6       Policy - Motorsport

·   To ensure that motorsport activities operate in a manner which do not result in an unreasonable level of noise being received by activities which are noise sensitive; and

·   To manage noise sensitive activities where they would be affected by noise from motorsport activities.

5.7       Policy – Use and Development of Ruapuna Motorsport Park

·   Provide for the use and development of the land and buildings at Ruapuna Motorsport Park in a manner that:

·     recognises the regional importance of the park as a motorsport facility; and

·     enables a range of uses that are ancillary to the park's use as a motorsport facility.

5.8       General Rules and Activity Status Tables specifying Permitted Activities are detailed in the Christchurch District Plan.

Delegations

5.9       Ruapuna Motorsport Park is considered to be a metropolitan asset as it impacts on users across the city.

5.10    The delegation to enter into a lease therefore sits with the full Council.

Minister of Conservation Delegation

5.11    On 12 June 2013, the Minster of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve.

5.12    In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

·        The land has been correctly identified;

·        The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

·        The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

·        The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

·        Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

·        Council officers have publically notified the Council’s intentions to consider granting Canterbury Car Club Incorporated a lease for 33 years.

·        Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease complies with the Minister’s requirements.

6.   Option 1 - Grant a Lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated over part of the land known as Ruapuna Park, the same area that was occupied by Canterbury Car Club Incorporated until 31 December 2016.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are required and will be carried out through the legislative process set down in the Reserves Act 1977. Additional engagement is considered to have been carried out by the level of engagement undertaken during the Christchurch District Plan consideration.

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       Motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to continue to have a facility of an international standard for motorsport.  Their views are supportive of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies, in particular Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – costs to prepare the lease documentation and public advertising expenses; approximately $1,000 to be recovered from the Lessee.

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

6.9       Funding source – not applicable

6.10    The final rental is still to be negotiated.  

Legal Implications

6.11    A Deed of Lease will be prepared to document the lease arrangement.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    Risk - reputational/image caused by media coverage.  This may result in some negative feedback from members of the public who do not support motorsport activities at Ruapuna Park.

6.12.1 Treatment - Current provision in Christchurch District Plan that permits this activity.

6.13    Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Recommendation by Community Board; Resolution by the Council; Public Notification of Intention to Grant Lease; Possible requirement for Reserves Hearing Panel.

6.15    Implementation timeframe – two to six months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Continue to utilise the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·   Continue the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·   Recognises the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The noise issue for the local residents will remain in the same location, albeit now with stricter rules under the Christchurch District Plan.

7.   Option 2 – Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club Incorporated

Option Description

7.1       Not grant a lease to Canterbury Car Club.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report but differs from section 2 of this report due to the level of significance differences which were determined by staff evaluation against the criteria in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy as follows:

·   Number of people affected and/or with an interest – there is a distinct group of motorsport enthusiasts in the form of club members, participants and spectators who are local to Christchurch, regional to Canterbury, national and international, who would be affected by not granting a lease decision. The local residents would also be affected by not granting a lease decision.

·   Level of impact on those people affected – a decision not to grant a lease would place a huge financial burden on the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated to re-locate and replicate their facilities. Individually, the members would face a reduced opportunity to use their personal investment they have in the vehicles they race. Local residents would benefit from a quieter environment.

·   Level of community interest for the issue, proposal or decision, or the potential to generate community interest – in the past there has been interest in the issues at Ruapuna Motorsport Park. When Plan Change 52 was proposed there were 41 submissions received. Chapter 21.10 Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone of the Christchurch District Plan attracted three submissions.

·   Possible environmental, social and cultural impacts - local residents have been pro-active through Quieter Please (Templeton) Incorporated, over noise and usage days which culminated in an Environment Court decision, the outcome of the Court decision has now been incorporated in the Christchurch District Plan. If a lease was not granted, the District Plan process would be re-commenced to consider any new location proposed by the Canterbury Car Club Incorporated.

·   Whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed – the impact and significance of reversing a decision not to granted a lease would depend on the timing of that reversal.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this medium level of significance are 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 club members and the motorsport community are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to continue to undertake motorsport activities in the Christchurch area.  Their views are not supportive of this option.

7.6       The local residents in the immediate vicinity are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have all noisesome activities cease.  Their views are supportive of this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7.1   Inconsistency - Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – does not align with Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.7.3   Amendment necessary – grant Canterbury Car Club Incorporated a lease.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation - nil

7.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - nil

7.10    Funding source – there is no budget to facilitate the removal and re-location of the facility.

Legal Implications

7.11    There are no legal implications in not granting a lease.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.12    Risk - reputational/image caused by media coverage.  This may result in some negative feedback from members of the public who do support motorsport activities at Ruapuna Park.

7.12.1 Treatment - Granting a lease and meet objectives of Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

7.13    Residual risk rating -  the rating of the risk is low

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.15    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Opens up a large space with less noisesome activities on Ruapuna Park.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Discontinues the realisation of the recreational potential of Ruapuna Park.

·   Discontinues the operation of a facility for motor racing which meets international standards.

·   Does not recognise the regional importance of the motorsport facility.

·   Is counter-productive in achieving the objectives of Specific Purpose (Ruapuna Motorsport) Zone – Chapter 21 Christchurch District Plan.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Site Plan - RPS856-42 (107 Hasketts Road)

36

 

 

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

Jeff Woodham - Leasing Consultant

Approved By

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

John Filsell - Head of Recreation and Sports

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

10     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Proposed Road Names - Various Subdivisions

Reference:

17/116625

Contact:

Paul Lowe

paul.lowe@ccc.govt.nz

941 6481

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider and approve proposed road names in two local subdivisions.

Origin of Report

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

1.3       This report relates to the subdivisions at Wigram Skies, Knights Stream Park, Kintyre Estate and Halswell Commons.

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 number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve the following road names:

1.         Wigram Skies Subdivision (RMA/2016/1074)

·        Earhart Lane

·        Aermacchi Lane

·        Strikemaster Lane

2.         Knights Stream Park (RMA/2016/1978)

·        Luxembourg Crescent

3.         Kintyre Estates, Stage 5B Subdivision (RMA/2013/1185)

·        Loch Tanna Way

·        Lussa Close

·        Glen Rosa Lane

4.         Halswell Commons, Stages 1 to 4 and Commercial Subdivision (RMA/2016/2585, RMA/2016/1628 and RMA/2016/2778)

·        Nevermore Place

·        Brancion Street

·        Manarola Road

·        Bellagio Place

·        Monsaraz Boulevard

·        Nostradamus Lane

·        Evora Place

·        Wimbeldon Lane

·        Lisbon Road

 

3.   Background 

 

3.1       Introduction

3.1.1   Road naming requests have been submitted by the developers of the following subdivisions: Wigram Skies, Knights Stream Park, Kintyre Estates and Halswell Commons.

3.1.2   The recommended road and right-of-way names have been checked against existing road  names in Christchurch and bordering districts for duplication, alternative spellings, or other similarities in spelling or pronunciation to avoid the potential for confusion. The recommended names are considered sufficiently different to existing road names.

3.1.3   The recommended road and right-of-way names have been checked against the Roads and Right of Way Naming Policy dated 2 November 1993. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this Policy.

3.1.4   The recommended road and right-of-way names have been checked against Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and urban addressing. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this standard.

3.1.5   Under the Roads and Right of Way Naming Policy the names considered must be requested by the developer. There is not an ability to consider alternative names without first checking whether there are any duplications or similarities with other road and right-of-way names.

3.1.6   The requests have been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which are summarised below.

3.2       Wigram Skies Subdivision

3.2.1   Road names have been requested by Mike Greer Homes Canterbury Limited at 99 Corsair Drive within the Wigram Skies subdivision (subdivision consent RMA/2016/1074).  These subject roads are situated between Kittyhawk Avenue, Pohe Street and MacKay Street, Wigram.

3.2.2   Earhart Lane – Amelia Mary Earhart was an American aviation pioneer and author. Earhart was the first female aviator to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean. She received the U.S. Distinguished Flying Cross for this accomplishment. 

3.2.3   Aermacchi Lane – The New Zealand Government purchased Aermacchi’s in 1990 to replace the Royal New Zealand Air Force BAC Strikemaster aircraft. The MB-339 provided the Royal New Zealand Air Force pilots with their introduction to fast jet operations, bridging the gap between CT/4E Airtrainer, in which they had completed their initial training, and whichever aircraft they went on to fly. With the disbandment of the Air Combat Force in 2001, the Royal New Zealand Air Force’s Aermacchi aircraft were retired.

3.2.4   Strikemaster Lane – The Royal New Zealand Air Force re quipped No 14 Squadron at Ohakea with 10 British Aircraft Corporation Strikmaster aircraft in 1972 as the replacement for the De Havilland Vampires which were withdrawn from service that year. The Strikemaster was used as a jet conversion training aircraft for pilots progressing through to the Skyhawks of No. 75 Squadron. Strikemaster aircraft were withdrawn from service in 1992 when they were replaced by the Aermacchi MB339.

3.3       Knights Stream Park Subdivision

3.3.1   Road names have been requested by Fulton Hogan Land Development Ltd for stage 8C of the Knights Stream Subdivision (subdivision consent RMA/2016/1978).  The subject road extends from Tongariro Street.

3.3.2   The theme for Knights Stream Park was well known parks around the world. The exception to this was in Stage 8A where they used Maori names – Huritini, Koareare and Koreke, which follow the alignment of the waka haulage route through the site.

3.3.3   The requested names revert back to the park theme for the development. Names in order of preference:

·     Luxembourg Crescent – after Luxembourg Gardens in Paris.

·     Balboa Crescent – after Balboa Park in San Diego which includes the San Diego zoo and multiple museums.

·     Ueno Crescent – after Ueno Park in Tokyo which is famous for its Cherrie Blossoms.

3.4       Kintyre Estates Stage 5B Subdivision

3.4.1   Road names have been requested by Kintyre Estates Ltd for stage 5B of the Kintyre Subdivision (subdivision consent RMA/2013/1185). The subject roads are situated between Rannoch Drive and the western boundary of the site.

3.4.2   The suggested road names are in keeping with the Scottish theme of the development.

3.4.3   Loch Tanna Way – is the largest and most remote loch on the island of Arran. The loch is located in the north of the island. Arran is located off the east coast of Kintyre North Ayrshire Scotland and within the Firth of Clyde.

3.4.4   Lussa Close – is the name given to a glen, a river, a loch, and a bay. Lussa Bay is located on the island of Jura in Argyll and Bute and is nearby to Ardlussa. In Gaelic Lussa means “bright water”.

3.4.5   Glen Rosa – is the name of a river and a glen located on the Island of Arran. Arran is located of the east coast of Kintyre Ayrshire Scotland and within the Firth of Clyde

3.4.6   Names that were suggested as alternatives are:

·     Lochranza - which is the name of a coastal village on the island of Arran, in the Firth of Clyde. The village is located at the shores of Loch Ranza, a small sea loch and also the site of 13th century ruins of the Lochrunza castle.

·     Marnoch – is the name of a saint and church of St Marnock (8th Century archaeological monastic site) located on the island of Inchmarnock in the northern end of Sound of Bute, Country of Bute, Argyll and Bute district, between Arran and the Kintyre Peninsula.

3.5       Halswell Commons Stage 1 to 4 and Commercial Subdivision

3.5.1   Road names have been requested by Danne Mora Holdings Ltd for stages Stage 1 to 4 and commercial of the Halswell Commons Subdivision. The subject roads are situated near Halswell Road and Hendersons Road.

3.5.2   The road names for all roads and lanes except Lisbon Road are from well-known villages in the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Portugal or Italy or famous horses bred or owned and trained on site:

·     Nevermore – horse

·     Brancion (France)

·     Manarola (Italy)

·     Bellagio (Italy)

·     Monsaraz (Portugal)

·     Nostradamus – horse

·     Evora (Portugal)

·     Wimbeldon (UK)

3.5.3   Alternative names are:

·     Gorbio (France)

·     Matera (Italy)

·     Positano (Italy)

3.5.4   Lisbon Road has been selected for the commercial area where road names are proposed to names of planned towns/town centres from around the world. Lisbon was rebuilt as a planned centre after the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake. Alternative names for this road are:

·     Corby (UK)

·     Dronten (Netherlands)

·     Helsinki (Finland)

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Wigram Skies Subdivision

42

b

Knights Stream Park Stage 8C

43

c

Kintyre Subdivision

46

d

Halswell Commons Subdivision Stages 1 to 4 and Commercial

47

 

 

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

Paul Lowe - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Lelanie Crous - Personal Assistant / Business Administrator

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

11.    Aidanfield Drive - Pedestrian Facility

Reference:

17/48813

Contact:

Andy Cameron

andy.cameron@ccc.govt.nz

941 5916

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on the outcome of the community consultation and request that they approve the installation of a pedestrian facility with associated No Stopping restrictions on Aidanfield Drive adjacent to the property at number six (refer to Attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following community engagement.  The proposed pedestrian facility project was initiated in response to complaints from the public that have been received over some years.  The proposal was communicated to the Community Board by memorandum on 18 January 2017 immediately prior to the commencement of community engagement.

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 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

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Aidanfield Drive, commencing at its intersection with Nash Road and continuing in a westerly direction for a distance of 92 metres.

2.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Aidanfield Drive, commencing at its intersection with Coppinger Terrace and continuing in a westerly direction for a distance of 80 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Aidanfield Drive, commencing at a point 27 metres west of its intersection with Nash Road and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 65 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Aidanfield Drive, commencing at a point 28 metres west of its intersection with Coppinger Terrace and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 52 metres.

5.         Approve the general layout for Aidanfield Drive as detailed in Attachment A, including kerb alignments, traffic islands, surface treatments, line markings and footpaths.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install a pedestrian refuge through an existing swale with associated No Stopping  (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 Aidanfield Drive by providing a central refuge.

·     Moves the existing crossing location to one that has improved sight lines which meet current best practice

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of 19 parking spaces

 

4.4          Community Feedback

4.5       Community engagement on the Aidanfield Drive Pedestrian Crossing Facility was open from 19 January 2017 to 8 February 2017.

4.6       A total of 60 leaflets were hand delivered to Aidanfield Drive between McMahon Drive and Euphrasie Drive. The leaflet was also sent to 75 key stakeholders and 13 absentee owners.

4.7       During the course of engagement, the Council received comments and feedback from two organisations and one resident. The organisations were Christchurch District Health Board and Christchurch Disability Group. The resident response received was an objection to the proposal.

4.8       All respondents have been communicated with by phone and/or email to discuss their individual project inquiries.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1      

·   Aidanfield Drive is a collector road subject to a 50 kilometre per hour speed limit.

·   Aidanfield Drive varies in width in this location. The road width at the culvert to the west is 10 metres, and this widens out to the access to the school where it is 16 metres wide including a six metre wide swale.

·   Aidanfield Drive is a bus route which serves route number 60. This service operates every 30 minutes and links Southshore with Aidanfield via key destinations such as the Palms Mall, the Bus Interchange, Selwyn Street Shops and Barrington Mall.

·   A crash analysis has been undertaken for this section of Aidanfield Drive for the five year period 2011-2015. During this study period there were three crashes, comprising of one minor injury crash and two non-injury crashes.

Context

5.2      

·   This location does not have a safe crossing that meets current best practice.

·   This crossing location is regularly used by school children.

·   Complaints have been received over the safety of the current crossing point.

·   A school speed zone is planned for Aidanfield Drive in future years.

6.   Option 1 - Pedestrian refuge located in existing swale (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option is to install a Pedestrian Crossing Facility 14 metres to the east of the existing cut down crossing.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

·        That the proposed pedestrian refuge will improve safety for all pedestrians

·        Inclusion of double hand rails, kerb cut downs and repainting any existing yellow no stopping lines is required.

·     Project Team Response - the proposed design for the pedestrian crossing complies with the CSS (Construction Standard Specifications) guidelines. As such double hand rails, cut downs will be included. Traffic Operations have a maintenance contractor that checks road markings every 6 to 9 months. Any that do not meet the code are repainted.

6.6       The opposed resident opinion was that the proposed crossing point would not address the current problem. That yellow no stopping lines should be installed from the bridge to the school signage. Suggested moving the cross point 50 to 100 metres nearer Croford Terrace.

·    Project Team response - staff investigation of the site has determined the proposed site is the best option for this crossing point due to existing pedestrian desire line, and the need to achieve minimum sight line distances.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation – The project will fall within the $61,000 allocated budget.

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

6.10    Funding source – 2017 CAPEX Road Safety At Schools

Legal Implications

6.11    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.

6.12    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 Board’s includes the resolution of parking restrictions, traffic control devices, traffic islands and pedestrian crossings.

6.13    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   

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies  - Approval by the Community Board

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves safety for pedestrians crossing Aidanfield Drive by providing a central refuge.

·   Moves the existing crossing location to one that has improved sight lines which meet current best practice.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

•    Loss of 19 parking spaces

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Aidanfield Drive remains unchanged.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this reportEngagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency - This option does not address known pedestrian safety issues.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.7       None

Risks and Mitigations

7.8       This option does not address the safety issues and therefore there will be a higher risk of a crash.

Implementation

7.9       Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

7.10    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.11    The advantages of this option include:

·   No loss of parking

7.12    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option does not address known pedestrian safety issues.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Aidanfield Drive - Pedestrian Island - Plan

54

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Andy Cameron - Junior Project Manager

Kim Swarbrick - Engagement Advisor

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer - Investigation & Design

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

12.    Aurora Street Access Way - Proposed Closure

Reference:

16/923941

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek a decision from the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on the future of the Aurora Street access way.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the resolution of the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board for staff to investigate the possible closure of the Aurora Street access way.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the criteria listed in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to receive the report and approve:

1.            Option 1 beingto maintain public access through the Aurora Street access way.

 

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: 10.0.33 Reduce risk to customers using the network via a targeted programme of safety improvements at high risk locations

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – maintain public access through the Aurora Street access way (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Move this matter to the formal road stopping procedure

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Public access is maintained through the access way

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This option will not address the concerns of the neighbours who’s properties share a boundary with the access way

 

5.   Aurora Street Access way Background

5.1       The Aurora Street access way runs approximately north to south between Aurora Street and Buchanans Road, it is located besides number 193 Buchanans Road and number 20 Aurora Street.

5.2       On 20 October 2015, the residents of number 20 Aurora Street and 193 Buchanans Road presented a petition (refer Attachment 1 Residents Petition), to the Riccarton/Wigram Community Board requesting its closure. The Board resolved to have staff investigate the matter and report back in line with the Councils ‘Pedestrian Access Way Policy’; which sets out the process to be followed upon receiving a request for an access way closure.

5.3       In April 2016, staff undertook counts of pedestrian using the Aurora Street access way during the am and pm peaks, nine people used the access way, between 8.15am and 9.15 am and 12 people used the access way between 3pm and 4.30 pm. The counts revealed that the access way was used significantly more than initially identified by residents.  

5.4       On the 13 May 2016, staff received the CPTED advice from the Council’s CPTED Advisor, which recommended that the “ Riccarton /Wigram Community Board considers closing the walkway and offering the land for sale to the owners of neighbouring properties”.  refer Attachment 2 CPTED Advice, 2).

5.5       On 5 July 2016, staff updated the Board on the investigation into the possible closure of the access way and the Board agreed to undertake formal consultation with the surrounding residents on the matter of the access way closure.

5.6       During the period 5 to 19 August 2016, the Council’s consultation team undertook consultation with approximately 150 residents in the vicinity of the Aurora Street access way and 36 key stakeholders refer paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 below).

5.7       The consultation phase of the investigation highlighted that Orion New Zealand Ltd has an existing 11kV low voltage network (street lighting) cable running down the Aurora Street access way.

5.8       A check of services within the access way undertaken in the first week of September 2016 confirmed Orion’s cable within the access way and that Chorus also has fibre optic cables running along the access way. Discussions with Orion indicate that to; investigate, scope, design and obtain quotes to relocate the 11kV cable would cost approximately $120,000 to $150,000. (refer Attachment 3 Orion NZ Ltd email).)

5.9       Under the Electricity Act 1992, all works associated with the relocation of the Orion cable would be a cost incurred against the Council. The Council does not have an operational budget or funding allocated within the Long Term Plan for relocation of services unless these are associated with an approved capital project. The Council’s Road Stopping Policy passes all associated costs to the applicants (refer Attachment 4 Road Stopping Policy).)

5.10    It is normal practice for surplus ’Road Reserve’ land disposed of by the Council to be sold to adjoining land owners who incur all costs associated with its boundary adjustment and the removal of services as well as formal Local Government Act road stopping application fees, staff time and environment court costs.

5.11    Staff contacted both residents who had indicated their desire to purchase the access way, if it were disposed of, upon identifying all the costs which would be incurred by these two residents, if the Board were to refer the matter to the formal road stopping process under the Local Government Act. It is considered not to be financially viable by the residents adjoining the Aurora Street access way to incur such costs associated with the closure. (refer Attachment 4 Road Stopping Policy).

6.   Option 1 – Maintain Public Access (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To maintain public access through the Aurora Street access way.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Community consultation on the Aurora Street/Buchanans Road access way closure proposal was undertaken from Friday 5 August 2016 to Friday 19 August 2016.

6.5       A total of 150 leaflets were hand delivered to properties on Aurora Street and Buchanans Road between Gilberthorpes Road and Hei Hei Road. The leaflet was also sent to 36 key stakeholders and 26 absentee owners.

6.6       During the course of the engagement, the Council received 13 submissions. Eight respondents were in support of the proposal, three respondents did not state their preference and two respondents did not support the proposal.

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

·   ‘Can't happen quickly enough. We are still having to put up with late night violence and disturbances. A continual flow of rubbish over the fence. The fence suffering continued damage.’

·   ‘These access ways have been notorious for antisocial behaviour for many years. The design of them does nothing to promote safe neighbourhoods.’

·   ‘Absolutely believe this access way should be closed to prevent further burglaries to the houses next to it.’

·   ‘This walkway/access way makes it easier for children to go from Aurora Street to Buchanans Road to get to school but they could walk to the end of Aurora St to Gilberthorpes Road just as easy. Access ways are often used for criminal activities.’

·   ‘I would love to see the closure of the Alley way between Buchanans Road and Aurora Street. There is a lot of arguing that happens in there at all hours of the evening. When you are sound asleep and hear people breaking bottles it's not a nice thing to wake up to and try and figure out whether it is in your yard or not. Broken bottles and rubbish do litter the area from time to time which is not a nice sight to see.’

6.8       The following feedback was received from submitters who did not support the proposal:

·    ‘The proposal should be rejected as it impacts heavily on the rights of access for anyone with any form of physical disability getting around the area with ease.’

·    ‘The pictures demonstrate overgrowth from private properties into the Pedestrian Access Route and the CCC should clear the entire footpath back to the pedestrian boundaries forthwith to improve sight and vision along the whole Pedestrian Access Route.  It would also improve light diffusion in the area.’

·    ‘A third light could well be installed on this Pedestrian Access Route to prevent criminal activity.’

·    ‘Why has the post not been installed at the Aurora Street end of the Pedestrian Access Route?  Currently, there is no reason to stop any person from backing a vehicle or trailer up the footpath for criminal activity.’

·    ‘The removal of the Aurora/Buchanans Pedestrian Access Route may well have an effect on how much use the Tauiwi Pedestrian Route gets in the future as it is very obvious from all maps that the use of both pedestrian access routes makes a very good shortcut from Tauiwi Crescent to Vanguard Drive.’

·    ‘I think it is wrong that because of the behaviour of a few, potentially many people could be affected, and be inconvenienced to have to walk further. If this access way is closed, maybe others may also be in line for a similar fate.’

·    ‘Elderly will find it difficult not having this route to get to bus stop. Are the lights in the access way even working? Could you install security cameras to help with criminal behaviour?’

·    ‘Orion has reticulation in the form of underground cables (high and low voltage and includes the street lighting cable) and distribution cabinets within this access way between Aurora Street and Buchanans Road. This reticulation plays an important role in enabling Orion to provide a safe, efficient and resilient supply of electricity for this area.’

6.9       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.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – There is no cost associated with this option

6.12    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Status quo will remain

6.13    Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

6.14    The Council has the ability to stop a road, or parts of a road, either by using the process under the Local Government Act (LGA) or the process under the Public Works Act (PWA). The key difference is the LGA requires public notice of the proposed closure to be given, whereas closure under the PWA requires only consent from adjacent property owners. Where the public may be affected by the closure, as in this case, the LGA procedure should apply.

6.15    The procedures that are required to be followed by the Council when using the LGA process are set out in the Tenth Schedule of the LGA, and include the public notification of the proposed road stopping and for the hearing of any objections received, as summarised below.

Local Government Act 1974

                    Section 319 (h) - General Powers of councils I respect of roads-

This section gives local authorities the general power to stop any road or part thereof in        accordance with the Act.

 

Section 342 (1) (a) – Stopping of roads-

Confers on the Council the ability to declare a road to be formally stopped.

 

Section 345 (2) – Amalgamation of stopped road with adjoining land-

This section enables the Council to require the amalgamation of stopped road with adjoining land if deemed appropriate.

 

Risks and mitigation

 

6.16    If option 1 is chosen, there will be no risks to the Council, however a lighting upgrade within the access way could be considered to mitigate the antisocial behaviour within the access way.

6.17    Implementation dependencies - A lighting assessment being undertaken and consultation with immediate neighbours with regard to additional light spill and private tree pruning.

6.18    Implementation timeframe – is dependent on The Asset Protection Team budget and programming.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Public access through the Aurora Street access way will be maintained.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This option will not address the concerns of the neighbours who’s properties share a boundary with the access way.

7.   Option 2 – Commence formal Road Stopping under the Local Government Act (1974)

Option Description

7.1       Staff prepare an Application for Road Stopping of the pedestrian access way situated between 193 and 195 Buchannans Road and 20 and 22 Aurora Street under the Local Government Act (1974), subject to, public notification and prior agreement of the proposed terms of sale of the road once stopped.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium consistent with section 2 of this report.  Engagement requirements for this level of significance are a requirement of the Local Government Act 1974.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Adjoining residents wanting to purchase the land are responsible for all costs associated with the road stopping and closure of an access way.

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – See paragraph 7.6 above

Legal Implications

7.9       The Council has the ability to stop a road, or parts of a road, either by using the process under the Local Government Act (LGA) or the process under the Public Works Act (PWA). The key difference is the LGA requires public notice of the proposed closure to be given, whereas closure under the PWA requires only consent from adjacent property owners. Where the public may be affected by the closure, as in this case, the LGA procedure should apply.

7.10    The procedures that are required to be followed by the Council when using the LGA process are set out in the Tenth Schedule of the LGA, and include the public notification of the proposed road stopping and for the hearing of any objections received, as summarised below.

Local Government Act 1974

                    Section 319 (h) - General Powers of councils I respect of roads-

This section gives local authorities the general power to stop any road or part thereof in        accordance with the Act.

 

Section 342 (1) (a) – Stopping of roads-

Confers on the Council the ability to declare a road to be formally stopped.

 

Section 345 (2) – Amalgamation of stopped road with adjoining land-

This section enables the Council to require the amalgamation of stopped road with adjoining land if deemed appropriate.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    All costs associated with the closure of an access way are incurred by the residents seeking the road closure. In the case of the Aurora Street access way, option 2 is considered to be financially unviable for the residents as the total costs associated with closure are likely to exceed $150,000 and could possibly exceed $200,000, Therefore, both residents have withdrawn their offer of interest in moving this matter to the formal road stopping process under the Act.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board decision and residents desire to pursue the closure

7.13    Implementation timeframe – six  to 12 months

7.14    Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Addresses the concerns of the neighbours who’s properties share a boundary with the access way

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Public access from Aurora Street to Buchanans Road via the access way would no longer be possible.

·   Significant cost incurred to neighbouring properties

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Residents Petition , Attachment 1

62

b

CPTED Advice, Attachment 2

66

c

Orion NZ Ltd Email, Attachment 3

70

d

CCC Road Stopping Policy, Attachment 4

71

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Katie Chapman - Engagement Advisor

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Approved By

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

13.    Sonter Road/Hayton Road Intersection - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

16/1222598

Contact:

Steve Dejong

steve.dejong@ccc.govt.nz

941 6428

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping restrictions at the Sonter Road and Hayton Road intersection in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from a motorist concerned with the lack of visibility for drivers exiting from Sonter Road onto Hayton Road. 

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 assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Sonter Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north eastern side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Sonter Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north western side of Sonter Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south eastern side of Sonter Road commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

 

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection

·     Enhances manoeuvring space for heavy vehicles

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       There has been a concern raised by a member of the public regarding the operation of the Sonter Road and Hayton Road intersection.  The intersection is a priority controlled T intersection, with Hayton Road forming the through route.

5.2       For motorists wanting to turn onto Hayton Road from Sonter Road visibility can be limited by parked vehicles on Hayton Road near the intersection.  

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

Install No Stopping restrictions on the Sonter Road and Hayton Road intersection approaches, as shown on Attachment A.  6.2    The option would theoretically remove space for eight parking spaces.  Parking demands are such that the displaced parking can be accommodated on-street within a small distance from the intersection. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       Affected property owners and businesses were advised of the recommended option by letter, and in person (where premises was occupied).  No responses were received from property owners. 

6.6       A business owner at 105 Hayton Road sought that that the No Stopping restriction be extended a short distance from the original proposal to the north western side of the property driveway.  The purpose is to improve visibility at the driveway and to provide manoeuvring space to enable heavy traffic to enter the property.  This has been included in the preferred option. 

6.7       One other business owner spoken to was concerned at the reduction of parking.  Observations in the area show that there will continue to be ample on-street parking spaces available for commuter parking. 

6.8       This report was presented to the Community Board on 8 November 2016. At that meeting a deputation was received from the Australian property owners of 105 Hayton Road and their lawyer requesting that the Board delay a decision until 2017 so they could have more time to consider their options. In early 2017, the property owners engaged a traffic planning consultancy to investigate options, staff held discussions with the property owners traffic engineer and agreed to reduce the length of therestriction on the north east side of Sonter Road to provide room for two parking spaces. Recommendation 4 has been altered to reflect this change.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation - $400

6.11    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.12    Funding source - Traffic Operations budget

Legal Implications

6.13    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.

6.14    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.15    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

6.16    Not applicable

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval

6.18    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the intersection.

·   Enhances manoeuvring space for heavy traffic.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Reduces on-street car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing intersection markings

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted sight lines at the intersection and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Sonter Road/Hayton Road - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Layout Plan

82

 

 

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

Steve Dejong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

14.    52 Hayton Road - Proposed P10 Parking Restriction and No Stopping Lines

Reference:

16/1499497

Contact:

Edwin Tiong

edwin.tiong@ccc.govt.nz

941 8188

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of a P10 parking restriction and a No Stopping restriction at 52 Hayton Road, in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from SAI Global (NZ) Limited to have improved access to short term parking for customers and deliveries.

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 assessment of the magnitude of the issue and the number of properties affected by the preferred option

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the south west side of Hayton Road commencing at a point 12 metres north of Dakota Crescent and Hayton Road intersection and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south west side of Hayton Road commencing at its intersection with Dakota Crescent and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north west side of Dakota Crescent commencing at its intersection with Hayton Road and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance  

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has been contacted by a tenant at 1/52 Hayton Road seeking short term on-street parking to service this property.

5.2       It is sought that three unrestricted parking spaces fronting the property be amended to P10 spaces to support customers and to support deliveries to the property.

5.3       There is a medium to high demand for commuter parking in the area on weekdays.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P10 Parking Spaces at 1/52 Hayton Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Replace three unrestricted parking spaces with three P10 parking spaces on the frontage of 52 Hayton Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The proposed changes are limited to the frontage of 52 Hayton Road.

6.5       The most affected business owner has requested the installation of the P10 parking restriction.

6.6       Other businesses operating from the same property were advised of the proposal. There has been no opposition received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $400 for the installation of marking, signage and pole.

6.9       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Covered under the area maintenance contract and the affect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    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.

6.12    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.13    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   

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval

6.16    Implementation timeframe – Approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports the adjacent business.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing unrestricted parking spaces at 52 Hayton Road.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the community request for short stay parking to support business activity.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the adjacent business.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

52 Hayton Road - Site Plan

88

 

 

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

Edwin Tiong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Manager Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

15.    338 to 340 Riccarton Road - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/191081

Contact:

Edwin Tiong

edwin.tiong@ccc.govt.nz

941 8188

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping restrictions at 338 to 340 Riccarton Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from the BP Service Station (BP) to have improved sight visibility for its customers exiting their driveways.

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 assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north side of Riccarton Road commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 59 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Riccarton Road commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Waimairi Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 59 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the entrance and exit of the BP service station.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes approximately eight car parking spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has been contacted by BP as part of an identified health and safety issue that their customers visibility when exiting its driveways, can be limited by parked vehicles on Riccarton Road.  This encourages drivers to ‘nose out’ into the road for better visibility.

5.2       There is a high demand for commuter parking in the area on weekdays and weekends.

5.3       There have been three reported crashes at the service station driveways in the last five years.  One of these involved serious injuries, and one involved minor injuries. 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install No Stopping restrictions on the frontage of 338 to 40 Riccarton Road to improve sight lines.

6.2       The option would theoretically remove space for eight parking spaces although parking demands are high nearby, on-street parking is readily available.

6.3       Riccarton Road has a high traffic volume and is classified as a Minor Arterial with an operating speed of 50 kilometres per hour.. Currently, with parked vehicles on the road frontage the observed sight distance from the driveway is measured at approximately 30 metres. With the removal of the parking restriction on the frontage of 338 to 340 Riccarton Road, a sight distance of greater than 90 metres can be achieved. This will make it substantially more comfortable for drivers to exit the driveway. 

6.4       The improved visibility will also reduce the tendency for drivers exiting the driveway to ‘nose out’ onto the roadway to gain a better view of approaching traffic before committing to the turn.  Drivers may inadvertently obstruct the path of approaching cyclists by doing this.  The proposal mitigates this issue. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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

6.7       The BP service station is concerned about their customer’s limited visibility when existingits driveways due to parked vehicles on the driveways frontages.  The service station supports the proposal. 

6.8       Five affected property owners and residents fronting the road were advised by letter of the recommended option.. There was one response in opposition received from the Bush Inn Tavern tenant concerned that there has been no staff parking provided for the Bush Inn Centre and that the car parking spaces have been further reducing following the development of the Centre.

6.9       With the removal of the eight unrestricted parking spaces on the driveway frontages, commuter parking would be dispersed into nearby streets. The impacts on those nearby streets or properties is considered to be minimum.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $200 for the installation of marking

6.12    Maintenance Ongoing Costs - Covered under the area maintenance contract and effects will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.13    Funding source - Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    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.

6.15    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.16    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

6.17    Not applicable

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.19    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at the BP driveways.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removes car parking.

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing markings and unrestricted parking spaces.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for improvement to the intersection.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Has no impact with regard to on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the restricted sightlines at the intersection and therefore the safety risk is not dealt with.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

338 to 340 Riccarton Road - Site Plan

94

 

 

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

Edwin Tiong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

16.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Technical Support re Funeral Home Resource Consent Application

Reference:

17/190306

Contact:

Karla Gunby

karla.gunby@ccc.govt.nz

941 6705

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the group of individuals below:

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00056010

Birchgate Lane Residents and the wider Knights Stream and Longhurst Residents.

Opposition to the Funeral Home Resource Consent Application

$4,198

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from the Birchgate Lane Residents and the wider Knight Stream and Longhurst Residents in Halswell.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to :

1.         Approve the making of  a grant of $4,198 to Birchgate Lane Residents and the wider Knights Stream and Longhurst Residents in Halswell towards the costs of engaging technical support to assist these residents in the preparation of evidence opposing  the  Funeral Home resource consent application for the property located at the corner of Wigram Road and Halswell Junction Road.

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2015/16

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$61,547

$46,845

$14,702

$10,504

 

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

4.3       The Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment (refer Attachment 1).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary  Response Fund 2016-17 -                Applications - Birchgate Lane           and Longhurst and Knights Stream Residents

97

 

 

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

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

17.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - March 2017

Reference:

17/123075

Contact:

Gary Watson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to resource the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to promote a pro-active partnership approach to decision-making between the Council and Community Boards.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decide to:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Area Report for March 2017.

2.         Receive the staff memorandum responding to the deputation made to the Board meeting on 13 December 2016 from the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association.

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Community Board Plan update against outcomes

3.1.1   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.   

3.2       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.2.1   Central Riccarton Residents’ Association

Arising from the deputation made to the Board on 13 December 2016 from the Central Riccarton Residents’ Association, the attached memorandum from staff responds to the matters raised by the organisation. 

3.3       The provision of strategic technical and procedural advice to the Community Board

3.3.1   Nothing to report this month.

3.4       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.4.1   Nor'West Arc Major Cycle Route is open for consultation until 27 March 2017.  Feedback is sought on the first stage of the cycleway from Cashmere Road to the University of Canterbury. The proposed route connects with an extended number of popular destinations such as the Heathcote River, Centennial Park, Pioneer Recreation and Sports Centre, Spreydon Domain, the University of Canterbury and the many schools along its length. It also intersects with a number of the Major Cycle Routes; the Opawaho River Route, Quarryman’s Trail, Little River Link, South Express and Uni Cycle.

3.5       Submission Opportunities

3.5.1   Nil to report.


 

 

3.6       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

Local community meetings on the Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2017-18 are to be held as follows:

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Date

Venue

Time

Monday 3 April 2017

Hornby Workingmens Club,

Westview Lounge, 17 Carmen Road, Hornby

5.30pm to 7pm

Tuesday 4 April 2017

Te Hapua: Halswell Centre,

Hao Room, 341 Halswell Road

5.30pm to 7pm

Wednesday 5 April 2017

Community Room,

Upper Riccarton Library, 71 Main South Road

5.15pm to 6.45pm

 

3.7       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

3.7.1   This is to be an annual report that will be provided by the Council’s Civil Defence and Emergency Management Unit. There is therefore nothing to report at this time.

3.8       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.8.1   The Board is asked to consider if there are any matters it wishes to have appearing in the Council’s Newsline.

3.8.2   Items included in recent Newsline issues featuring aspects of interest in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton area include:

·     Numerous updates on the Port Hills Fire (from 15 February 2017)

·     Wigram Basin flood protection project (23 February 2017)

·     Summer Shakespeare at Mona Vale as part of events calendar (17 February 2017)

·     Community input sought on location options for the new combined library, leisure centre, community and customer service facilities planned for south west Christchurch (9 February 2017)

·     The Council adopts speed limit changes on seven roads in the Halswell ward (2 February 2017)

3.9       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.9.1   The Board is asked to consider if there are any matters of interest for the Board Chairperson to raise with the Council.

4.   Key Local Projects (KLPs) and Strengthening Communities Funded Projects

4.1       The 24-7 youth workers funded by the Board working for CDN Trust, La Vida Youth Trust and South West Youth Trust have started working at their respective schools (Kirkwood Intermediate School, Riccarton Primary School, Riccarton High School and Hornby High School).

4.2       Oak Development Trust's Common Ground Café is operating again in 2017 on the first and third Friday afternoon of each month at 80 Rattray Street.

4.3       The Council staff have met with the Halswell Residents’ Association to progress work on the Wigram Air Crash Memorial. 

4.4       The Harvard Lounge noticeboard will be painted and the lock system changed in the coming weeks.  All local community groups will be informed so that they can start putting up notices themselves.

4.5       In February 2017, the Council organised a meeting of twelve organisations or interested parties who were working with residents in Hei Hei/Broomfield.  They met to network amongst themselves, discuss what is happening in the area and how the group of organisations can better work together in the future.  It was agreed that the group would meet again in May 2017.    

 

5.   Significant Community Issues

5.1       Kennedys Bush and Westmorland Fire Issues

5.1.1   Status – Staff are developing a recovery plan along with the residents of these areas over the next four weeks.

5.1.2   Action – A community meeting was held on 23 February 2017 on Kennedys Bush Road.  Questions from that meeting were fed back to the community. 

Assistance has been offered in the form of funding and staff time, to the Westmorland and Kennedys Bush Road Residents’ Associations to assist with recovery.  

5.1.3   Timeframe – This will be an on-going project for the local Community Governance Team. 

5.2       Stock Transfer of Housing New Zealand properties in Riccarton

5.2.1   Status - Housing New Zealand has signalled a proposed stock transfer of up to 2,500 properties in Christchurch to social housing providers.  This is projected to include properties in Riccarton.  Letters have gone out from Housing New Zealand to some Riccarton Housing New Zealand tenants and local community organisations have reported dealing with a number of tenants who are feeling very vulnerable.

5.2.2   Action – A local Riccarton public meeting was held on 19 February 2017.  A city-wide meeting is planned for 9 March 2017 at the Transitional Cathedral.

5.2.3   Timeframe – No firm date has been identified by Housing New Zealand for this to take place.  Market sounding for bidders closed on 3 February 2017.

 

6.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1       Community Facilities

6.1.1   The Council staff from multiple units met to discuss the ways of working at Te Hapua: Halswell Centre, to increase customer satisfaction in the community facility. 

6.1.2   An Expression of Interest was received from a group of three organisations about jointly leasing the former Halswell Library.  This is being processed by the Council’s Leasing Consultancy Team.

6.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

6.2.1   Recently, the Community Development Advisers met with the Otautahi Community Housing Trust to discuss projects.  The Trust has a very similar Garden Pride Award Ceremony on 10 March 2017.  It was agreed that the ward would experiment with inviting certificate recipients to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Garden Awards function to acknowledge their contribution to the beautification that these gardens provide to local communities.    

6.3       Infrastructure projects underway

6.3.1   Some of the key Infrastructure projects in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards area.

·   Riccarton Road - Bus Priority and Infrastructure Upgrade - construction is ongoing.    Work on the Deans Avenue/Harakeke Street/ Clarence Street section of the road is progressing.

·   Major Cycleway Routes – 13 Major Cycle Routes are progressively being built in the city, connecting suburbs, shopping areas, businesses, schools and sporting destinations.

Routes in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards are:

·   Quarryman’s Trail - consultation was completed in late 2016 followed by the Council’s approval of the detailed design and construction. Work is to commence in 2017. The cycleway will help support the residential growth areas around the south west of the city by connecting Halswell to the Central City via Hoon Hay and Somerfield.

·   Nor’West Arc - this route is expected to be used primarily by commuters and students and will link Hoon Hay, Middleton, Upper Riccarton, Bryndwr and Papanui and is scheduled for completion in 2018.

·   South Express – the city’s western boundary in Templeton will connect Hornby, Sockburn and Middleton to Riccarton and Addington finishing with a link to the Northern Line Cycleway, Nor’West Arc and the shared paths in South Hagley Park. It is expected the route will be completed in 2019.

·   Uni Cycle – this route is under construction and will connect the University of Canterbury with the Central City.

·   Christchurch Southern Motorway, Stage 2 (New Zealand Transport Agency project) Site works by the McConnell Dowell/Downer joint venture commenced in October 2016. The construction period for project completion is three and a half years.

·   Riccarton Road Intersections and corridor improvements - the project being to improve road safety at Ilam/Middleton/Riccarton intersection is scheduled to commence in 2016-17 with completion in 2017-18.

·   Pound Road Realignment – work is continuing on realigning Pound Road with State Highway 1 at Templeton.  

6.4       Events Report Back

6.4.1   The first of the Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub milestone events was held on 28 February 2017 to celebrate the countdown to the completion of the new, international-standard athletics track. Speakers included Julyan Falloon from Sport Canterbury, Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, Mike Knell from New Zealand Community Trust and Mayor Lianne Dalziel. Over 60 students from Aidanfield, Halswell and Spreydon Primary Schools also attended the event participating in a 100 metre relay race to mark the occasion.

6.4.2   Connect 2017 will be held at Harrington Park in Riccarton on Sunday 5 March 2017 from 12.30pm to 3.30pm. The event is organised in a partnership involving the Oak Development Trust, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Police and Christchurch City Council.

The event aims to bring together over 200 university students and permanent residents of the Riccarton West area, to share a day of fun activities which connect local people, promote healthy lifestyles and help build local partnerships and community coalitions.

 

7.   Parks, Sports and Recreation Update (bi-monthly)

7.1       Local Parks Update

7.1.1   Nothing to report this month.

7.2       Sports Parks Update

7.2.1   Nothing to report this month.

7.3       Capital Works Projects

7.3.1   Nothing to report this month.

 

8.   Community Board funding budget overview 

8.1       Attached for information is the monthly status update on the Board’s 2016/17 funding.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Staff Memorandum - Central Riccarton Residents' Association

104

b

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Funding 2016-17 Update - March 2017

123

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

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

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

14 March 2017

 

 

18.  Elected Members Information Exchange

 

This item provides an opportunity for Board Members to update each other on recent events and/or issues of relevance and interest to the Board.

 

 

 

19.  Questions Under Standing Orders

 

Any member of the local authority may at any meeting of the local authority at the appointed time, put a question to the Chairperson, or through the Chairperson of the local authority to the Chairperson of any standing or special committee, or to any officer of the local authority concerning any matter relevant to the role or functions of the local authority concerning any matter that does not appear on the agenda, nor arises from any committee report or recommendation submitted to that meeting.

 

Wherever applicable, such questions shall be in writing and handed to the Chairperson prior to the commencement of the meeting at which they are to be asked.