Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 26 April 2017

Time:                                    5.30pm

Venue:                                 Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, 
Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

20 April 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

26 April 2017

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 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   

STAFF REPORTS

C       6.       15 Tyndale Place - Request for Trees Removal........................................................... 13

CA     7.       Interim Use of 381 Halswell Road (former Halswell Library)...................................... 25

C       8.       Licence for Gravel Extraction - 35 Miners Road.......................................................... 37

C       9.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Iris Taramai, Emily Cox and Gemma Rowe.......................................... 45

C       10.     New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 - Board Members' Attendance 49

B       11.     Elected Members Information Exchange..................................................................... 52

B       12.     Questions Under Standing Orders............................................................................... 52 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

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 11 April 2017,  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Alan Leckie, property owner, has been granted speaking rights to address the Board regarding the silver birch street trees at 15 Tyndale Place (Item 6 refers).

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 11 April 2017

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

11 April 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

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00110

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 28 March 2017, be confirmed.

Ross McFarlane/Catherine Chu                                                                                                                             Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Brett Erskine, local resident, addressed the Board regarding his concerns regarding the proposed bus stop outside his property at 67 Patterson Terrace.

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Brett Erskine for his deputation.

             Item 9 of these minutes records the Board’s decision on this matter. 

 

4.38pm Vicki Buck left the meeting.

4.47pm Vicki Buck returned to the meeting.

 

4.2       Dave Matheson, local resident, addressed the Board in relation to the Silver Birch street tree outside his property at 50 Brigham Drive.

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Dave Matheson for his deputation.

             Item 7 of these minutes records the Board’s decision on this matter.

 

9.   Patterson Terrace, Halswell - Proposed Bus Stop

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report. 

The Board also took into consideration the deputation from Brett Erskine (Item 4.1 of these minutes refers). 

 

Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the following parking changes to provide a new bus stop adjacent to 67 Patterson Terrace:

a.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Patterson Terrace, commencing at a point 88 metres south east of its intersection with Alvaston Drive, and extending in a south east direction for a distance of 26 metres, be revoked.

b.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south west side of Patterson Terrace commencing at a point 88 metres south east of its intersection with Alvaston Drive, and extending in a south east direction for a distance of four  metres.

c.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south west side of Patterson Terrace, commencing at a point 92 metres south east of its intersection with Alvaston Drive, and extending in a south east direction for a distance of 14 metres.

d.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south west side of Patterson Terrace commencing at a point 106 metres south east of its intersection with Alvaston Drive, and extending in a south east direction for a distance of eight  metres.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00111

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommends its preference for Option 2  and accordingly requests that staff further investigate the option of a bus stop outside 59 Patterson Terrace, and report back to the Board.

Helen Broughton/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

The meeting adjourned temporarily at 4.58pm until 4.59pm.

 

7.   50 Brigham Drive - Request for Tree Removal

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and also took into consideration the deputation from Dave Matheson (Item 4.2 of these minutes refers). 

 

Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Decline the request to remove the silver birch tree outside number 50 Brigham Drive.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00112

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

 

1. Approve Option 2 in  the staff report, being the removal of the Silver Birch street tree outside 50 Brigham Drive and records the offer made by  Mr Dave Matheson to meet the full costs of the tree removal, replacement and resource consent process. 

Mike Mora/Ross McFarlane                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

6.   Correspondence - Riccarton Racecourse

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00113

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part B

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

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 11 April 2017.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

Community Board Decided HHRB/2017/00114

Community Board

Part A

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

2.         Direct staff to investigate a temporary liquor ban being applied in the immediate area of the Riccarton Racecourse, namely Yaldhurst Road to Middlepark Road, Epsom Road to Racecourse Road, Buchanans Road to Masham Road and Masham Road to Yaldhurst Road for its Cup Day on Saturday 18 November 2017 from 12am to 12pm, and to report back to the Council by July 2017, through the Regulatory Performance Committee.

 

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

8.   Road Naming - 67 Caulfield Avenue

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve the following road names for a subdivision at 67 Caulfield Avenue (RMA/2015/2704):

1.         Furlong Lane

2.         Lazarus Lane

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00115

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to approve the following road name for a subdivision at 67 Caulfield Avenue (RMA/2015/2704):

1.         Lazarus Lane

Ross McFarlane/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

10. 40R Pentonville Close (Road Reserve) - Easement

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00116

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, acting in the capacity of the administering body, resolved to:

1.         Recommend that the Chief Executive acting as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consents to the granting of the easement for the right to drain sewage as outlined in the staff report.

2.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to convey water over 40R Pentonville Close (Certificate of Title reference 323977), shown as the area shaded blue marked “Right to Drain Sewage” on the plan attached to the staff report, subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement including recovering all Council costs for granting the easement from the applicant.

Mike Mora/Vicki Buck                                                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

11. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Michaela O'Donoghue and Chyna-Maree Keen

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00117

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

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

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $300 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Michaela O’Donoghue towards competing in the National Rock ‘n’ Roll Competitions in Wanganui in April 2017.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $300 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Chyna-Maree Keen towards attending the New Zealand Softball Developing Girls High Performance Camp in April 2017.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

12. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund - Application - Scouting New Zealand Torlesse Zone (Rimu Park)

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00118

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

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

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $1,045 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to Scouts New Zealand Torlesse Zone towards boundary shelter belt trimming at Rimu Park.

Helen Broughton/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                         Carried

 

13. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - April 2017

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00119

Community Board Decision under Delegation (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part B

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

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

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

14. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

Board members exchanged information on matters of current interest.

 

15. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 5.49pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

6.        15 Tyndale Place - Request for Trees Removal

Reference:

17/214858

Contact:

Jonathan Hansen

jonathan.hansen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8328

 

 

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 or decline the removal of two silver birch trees located outside 15 Tyndale Place in Ilam. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board in response to its resolution of 8 November 2016.

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 utilising the Significance and Engagement assessment worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Decline the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Decline the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place (preferred option).

·     Option 2 - Approve the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place and replace the trees with another species with all costs to be borne by the applicant.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The two trees are in a healthy condition.

·     The two trees add some amenity to the area.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The two trees may contribute some nuisance value to surrounding properties.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board received correspondence from Kaye and Alan Leckie (refer Attachment A) requesting that the two silver birch trees be removed and replaced with a different species of tree.

5.2       The two trees are estimated to have been planted in 1982. The larger tree is considered to be in good condition and the slightly smaller tree is considered to be in a fair condition. Please refer to the tree assessment in Attachment B.

5.3       A summary of the reasons that the owners would like the trees removed are as follows:

·    The height and close proximity of the two trees to the house

·    The possibility that tree roots may grow under the concrete pad of the house

·    The exposure of the trees to the north west wind

·    The possibility that tree roots may be causing on-going damage to the footpath and private landscaping.

Consultation

5.4       A letter was delivered to neighbouring residents (refer Attachment C). One response was received and was in support of removing the two trees. They would like to know the outcome of the decision on the two trees outside 15 Tyndale Place and if the removal is approved, they would like to request the removal of the three street trees outside their property at 20 Tyndale Place. They would like the trees removed for similar reasons as outlined in paragraph 5.3 above.


 

6.   Option 1 - Decline the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Decline the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers.

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 and ratepayers are specifically affected by this option due to the amenity value of the two trees and the potential nuisance value which the two trees may cause.  A letter was delivered to the affected properties and one response was received which was in support of the removal of the two trees.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – The two trees are pruned approximately every five years.

6.9       Funding source - Street Tree Maintenance budget

Legal Implications

6.10    There may be some future maintenance issues and resident concerns with the tree.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.11    If the request to remove the two trees is declined, then the two trees may cause future damage to the surrounding infrastructure. The residents may continue to experience the nuisance effects of the trees.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

6.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The two trees are in a healthy condition.

·   The two trees add some amenity to the area.

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The two trees may contribute some nuisance value to surrounding properties.

7.   Option 2 - Approve the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place and replace the tree(s) with another species with all costs to be borne by the applicant

Option Description

7.1       Approve the request to remove the two silver birch trees outside 15 Tyndale Place and replace the tree(s) with another species with all costs to be borne by the applicant.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to engage locally, with affected residents and ratepayers.

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 and ratepayers are specifically affected by this option due to the amenity value of the two trees and the potential nuisance value which the two trees may cause.  A letter was delivered to the affected properties and one response was received which was in support of the removal of the two trees.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $1,738

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Approximately $250 per annum for the first three years.

7.9       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    The applicant will need to apply for a resource consent to remove the two trees.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    If the request to remove the two trees is approved, then there may be a loss of amenity within the area while a replacement tree(s) establish. The resource consent may not be approved.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - The removal of the two trees may cause some disruption to residents and road users.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Will depend on resource consent being obtained

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Future maintenance of the two trees will be avoided.

·   The residents’ concerns at 15 Tyndale Place will be addressed.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The two trees are in a healthy condition.

·   The two trees add some amenity to the area.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Kaye and Alan Leckie Correspondence re Street Trees outside 15 Tyndale Place

18

b

Tree Assessment - 15 Tyndale Place

21

c

Letter to Surrounding Residents re Proposal to Remove Street Trees outisde 15 Tyndale Place.

24

 

 

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

Jonathan Hansen - Arborist South

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

7.        Interim Use of 381 Halswell Road (former Halswell Library)

Reference:

17/233752

Contact:

Bruce Rendall

bruce.rendall@ccc.govt.nz

941 8053

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (the Board) to consider an interim use of the former Halswell Library. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to requests from the Board to find an interim use of the facility.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the author.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Notes that as there is no funding for the use or maintenance of 381 Halswell Road (the former Haslwell Library) included in the current Long Term Plan or Annual Plan, officers are not delegated authority to approve any use that requires the expenditure of funds.

2.         Resolves to:

a.         Support an interim use of the facility for a term of six months;

b.         Approve the expenditure of up to $20,000 from the Board’s Discretionary Response Fund to undertake necessary actions to make the building suitable for leasing; and

3.         Requests staff to explore options with the Halswell Community Project to reduce the level of expenditure from the Board’s discretionary funds.

4.         Recommends to the Council that it directs staff to enter into a six month lease of 381 Halswell Road with the Halswell Community Project at a rental of no more than $200 per week.

 

 


 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Community Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1 Provide community facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.7 Support community based management of community facilities

4.2       While the proposal in this report supports these levels of service, there is no budget for the ongoing operation of the facility included in either the current Long Term Plan or the 2016/17 Annual Plan.  As the implementation of the proposal requires the expenditure of funds for which there is no budget, it falls outside of staff delegations and must be referred to the full Council for a decision.

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered for the interim use of the building at 381 Halswell Road, Halswell (the former Halswell Library):

·     Option 1 – enter into a short term use and occupation agreement with the Halswell Community Project (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – undertake a public expression of interest process calling for potential users of the facility.

·     Option 3 – do nothing.  The building remains vacant until its future is determined.

4.4       A fourth option, accelerate the sale process was considered.  This option was not considered feasible in the context of the Council’s existing approved properties for review process, which indicates that Community Boards have a period of six months to consider properties that could have different uses.  This view could be reconsidered should a compelling case be presented (e.g. a community group offered to purchase the property).

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.5.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Allows for additional community use space to be made available in Halswell on an interim basis.

·     Provides occupation of a vacant building, potentially reducing the risk of damage and vandalism.

4.5.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The proposal will increase occupier and community expectations that the facility will remain permanently.

·     There is no funding for the reopening and ongoing maintenance of this building.  This funding will need to be found within existing budgets, creating opportunity costs for other facilities.

·     Financially, the proposal will cost more than it makes.  The investment may be lost if the Community Board and Council determine a different future for the building.

 

 


 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       In November 2015, library services for the Halswell and surrounding communities relocated to
Te Hāpua – Halswell Centre, a combined citizen hub centre incorporating a library, pool, service centre and community meeting spaces.  The former library, located at 381 Halswell Road, has been vacant since this date.

5.2       Officers are exploring options for the future of the site in conjunction with the Board, however, this process is likely to continue throughout 2017.  An interim use of six months is warranted and the Council has the discretion to negotiate new agreements for additional six month blocks if a final decision was imminent.  While longer periods are also possible, these would be subject to legislative requirements to publicly advertise leases of more than six months. 

5.3       The Board has expressed a desire for an interim use of the facility.

Proposals

5.4       Several community and other groups have indicated a willingness to use the facility.

5.5       Information from these groups has been reviewed. 

5.6       The Halswell Community Project has a moderately developed proposal for a variety of community oriented uses.

5.7       On the information supplied the other proposals are not as well developed or would seem, on face value, to be commercial uses not suited for a community building (e.g. exclusive use for dance, cooking or yoga studio). 

Property Requirements

5.8       The Council can enter into short term agreements for the use and occupation of facilities.

5.9       The Council’s normal process would be to undertake an open and transparent “Expression of Interest” process for an opportunity like this.   In this case, such a process is not considered efficient or appropriate.  The costs (staff and community time; direct expenditure) outweigh the benefits (allowing all possible users to have a chance to apply to use the facility) particularly given the short period.

5.10    A Detailed Engineering Evaluation was completed in April 2013 which assessed 381 Halswell Road with a quantitative assessment of 55 per cent NBS (New Building Standard). The building is structurally sound and has suffered only minor damage from earthquakes.

5.11    The building appears to be in poor condition however much of this is superficial (e.g. visible cracking to concrete foundation and to ceiling lining above the former library staff area).  It will cost an estimated $20,000 to bring the property back to a standard where it can be occupied and/or leased. Key items include:

·    Recommissioning building systems including auto door and HVAC;

·    The carpark is in poor condition and would require repairs of numerous and large pot holes. The line marking is also severely faded and barely visible in some areas.

·    Toilet fittings and fixtures were roughly removed when the facility was vacated and would be required to be replaced and damage to walls made good. As toilets have not been used for over 12 months, the toilet pans have also become stained.

5.12    Ongoing maintenance costs have been assessed as $10,500 per annum.

6.   Discussion

6.1       The process to allow interim use of a facility such as this could be improved to be significantly simpler than it is currently.  A “better” future state might include mechanisms to protect base level funding until the future of a vacant facility is determined.  This would increase the likelihood that decisions could be made within current delegations and at Board level rather than needing to be referred to the Council.

6.2       Causes of this problem include the interconnection of activity (e.g. the library service) and asset funding (e.g. the building), and decisions about new facilities made in isolation to the decisions about the future of existing facilities.   Separating activity or service funding from the underlying asset funding allows flexibility to consider alternative uses, even when the activity funding is transferred to a new location.   A possible improvement to the new asset decision making process is the consideration of the future uses of existing assets (or less preferably processes for determining future uses).

6.3       The building has currently been included in the Council’s corporate buildings portfolio.  There is insufficient funds available in this portfolio budget to fund operating expenditure in 2016/17.  If the Council supported the interim use of the facility, then an adjustment will be sought to the corporate facility portfolio budget for 2017/18.

7.   Option 1 – Short Term Use Agreement with the Halswell Community Project (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       The preferred option is to lease the site to the Haswell Community Project for a period of six months for community purposes.  The building is currently vacant and there is expressed demand for access to community facilities that cannot fully be met elsewhere in the vicinity (due to high demand at peak times and requirements associated with non-exclusive use).

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.  The Council could consider informing neighbours of the proposed use.

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       No identified group is specifically affected by this option.  The potential user groups could be considered affected, however, there are alternative spaces available for service delivery activities (albeit spare capacity may not be available at the preferred times).  The local community will have a general interest in the use.  Their views are likely to be diverse, and dependent on their perspective.  No specific engagement is required given the low level of financial impact and interim nature of the use.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7       The proposal is inconsistent with the Council’s financial plans as no funding has been budgeted to support either the building “maintenance” or the use.

7.8       As the use is community managed, no Council funding is required.  Additional funding is required for the building maintenance and required works to recommission the facility.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – An estimated $20,000 is required to bring the building up to an appropriate level for leasing.

7.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $10,500.

7.11    Funding source – There is currently no identified funding source for either the recommissioning works or the ongoing maintenance.  Neither the Corporate (where the Council holds its facilities subject to review) nor the Community Facilities (reflecting the proposed use) portfolio have sufficient funds that can be diverted away from planned uses on other buildings.

7.12    A possible source of funding for the recommissioning works and the maintenance for the remainder of the 2016/17 year is the Board’s discretionary response fund, supplemented by any donations from the proposed user.  A total of $21,800 would be required.  For ongoing maintenance an adjustment could be sought to the corporate facility portfolio budget for 2017/18.

Legal Implications

7.13    A lease will be required to guide and protect the tenant and the Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.14    There are no intolerable risks with this proposal.

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies - Implementation requires two parallel streams of work.  Officers are already in discussion with the Halswell Community Project over occupation arrangements.  If the Council approves this interim use then these will be completed.  The works required to allow use of the facility have also been planned and will be implemented expeditiously if the Council approves the interim use.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·    Allows for additional community use space to be made available in Halswell.

·    Provides occupation of a vacant building, potentially reducing the risk of damage and vandalism.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The proposal will increase occupier and community expectations that the facility will remain permanently.

·    There is no funding for the reopening and ongoing maintenance of this building.  This funding will need to be found from other sources, such as the Board’s discretionary fund or donations from the occupier.

·    Financially, the proposal will cost more than it makes.  The investment may be lost if the Community Board and the Council determine a different future for the building.

8.   Option 2 – Expressions of Interest Process

Option Description

8.1       This option involves undertaking a public expression of interest process for potential users of the facility prior to entering into an interim use agreement.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.  The Council could consider informing neighbours of the proposed use.  Consideration of advertising for the option is also necessary.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       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

8.5       No identified group is specifically affected by this option.  The potential user groups could be considered affected, however there are alternative spaces available for service delivery activities (albeit spare capacity may not be available at the preferred times).  The local community will have a general interest in the use.  Their views are likely to be diverse, and dependent on their perspective.  No specific engagement is required given the low level of financial impact and interim nature of the use.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.7       The proposal is inconsistent with the Council’s financial plans as no funding has been budgeted to support either the building “maintenance” or the use.

8.8       As the use is community managed, no Council funding is required.  Additional funding is required for the building.

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation – An estimated $20,000 is required to bring the building up to an appropriate level for leasing.  Not accounting for staff time, an additional $1,000 to $1,500 would be required to advertise the opportunity.

8.10    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $10,500 per annum.

8.11    There is currently no identified funding source for either the recommissioning works or the ongoing maintenance.  Neither the Corporate (where the Council holds its facilities subject to review) nor the Community Facilities (reflecting the proposed use) portfolio have sufficient funds that can be diverted away from planned uses on other buildings.

8.12    A possible source of funding for the recommissioning works and the maintenance for the remainder of the 2016/17 year is the Board’s discretionary fund, supplemented by any donations from the proposed user.  A total of $21,800 would be required.  For ongoing maintenance an adjustment could be sought to the corporate facility portfolio budget for the draft Long Term Plan 2017/18.

Legal Implications

8.13    A lease will be required to guide and protect the tenant and the Council.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.14    There are no intolerable risks with this proposal.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies - Implementation requires two parallel streams of work.  If the Council adopted this option, adverting would occur within two weeks of the Council decision.  An additional six to eight weeks would be required to complete this process.  The works required to allow use of the facility have also been planned and will be implemented expeditiously if the Council approves the interim use.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·    Allows for all interested parties to express interest in the facility.

·    Allows for additional community use space to be made available in Halswell.

·    Provides occupation of a vacant building, potentially reducing the risk of damage and vandalism.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The costs (staff and community time; direct costs) of undertaking a public process are likely to be greater than the benefits (allowing all parties to have a chance to apply to use the facility) given that only a short term interim use is proposed.  

·    The time required for undertaking the expression of interest process is not justified given the length of use proposed.

·    The proposal will increase occupier and community expectations that the facility will remain permanently

·    There is no funding for the reopening and ongoing maintenance of this building.  This funding will need to be found within existing budgets, creating an opportunity costs for other facilities.

9.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

9.1       Under this option the building will remain vacant until a decision about the permanent use is made.

Significance

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

9.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.  The Council could consider informing neighbours of the proposed use. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

9.5       No identified group is specifically affected by this option.  The potential user groups could be considered affected, however, there are alternative spaces available for service delivery activities (albeit spare capacity may not be available at the preferred times).  The local community will have a general interest in the use.  Their views are likely to be diverse, and dependent on their perspective.  No specific engagement is required given the low level of financial impact and interim nature of the use.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

9.7       The proposal is consistent with the Council’s financial plans as no funding has been budgeted to support either the building “maintenance” or the use.  No funding would be required under this model.

Financial Implications

9.8       Cost of Implementation – The cost of implementing this option is low.  The Council’s only costs are reactive expenditure to ensure that the building is kept safe and secure.

9.9       Funding source – There is no funding source for the reactive expenditure.  Officers would talk to managers of the maintenance budgets for other portfolios on a case by case basis should funding be required.

Legal Implications

9.10    There are no additional legal implications with this option over and above those that the Council generally has a land owner.

Risks and Mitigations    

9.11    There is a risk that the building is damaged or vandalised caused by inappropriate use.   This could result in costs to the Council to repair and potential reputational damage.

9.11.1 Treatment: Risks treatments include

·     Ensuring that the site is kept tidy so that there is passive surveillance opportunities for neighbours and passers-by

·     Regular inspections

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

Implementation

9.12    Implementation dependencies  - no additional implementation actions are necessary.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional funding will be required to reopen or maintain the building

9.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No additional community use space is made available in Halswell. There is already spare capacity in available community space within Halswell, however there may not be spare capacity at preferred peak times or for some of the uses desired (administrative space; storage; permanently set up activities)

·   The building remains unoccupied, potentially increasing the risk of damage and vandalism

 



 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposal from Halswell Community Project

34

 

 

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

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Approved By

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

8.        Licence for Gravel Extraction - 35 Miners Road

Reference:

17/308843

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 approve the granting of an Access Agreement Licence for Gravel Extraction from Reserve 2529 Canterbury, also known as 35 Miners Road, Yaldhurst, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by staff assessment.

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 an Access Agreement Licence for Gravel Extraction to Fulton Hogan Limited for a term of five (5) years with an annual licence fee based on royalties from the extraction of gravel from Reserve 2529 Canterbury at 35 Miners Road, Yaldhurst, Christchurch.

2.         Authorise the Manager Property Consultancy to conclude the Access Agreement Licence with Fulton Hogan Limited.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant a New Access Agreement Licence (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Terminate Current Access Agreement and Make Good

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Helps to fulfil Fulton Hogan’s commitments to the rebuild of Christchurch and Canterbury.

·     Revenue to the Council through royalty payments.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Limited amount of material available for extraction – once it is removed, there is no more available.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Land Status

5.1       Reserve 2529 (the Reserve) is a parcel of land located at 35 Miners Road, Yaldhurst, vested in the Christchurch City Council and classified for the purpose of a Gravel Pit in New Zealand Gazette Notice 1881 page 1484.

5.2       The use of the Reserve for the extraction of gravel is consistent with the intended purpose.  The Gazette Notice also states that the land may be used for pastoral purposes, namely grazing.

5.3       An aerial image of the Reserve is outlined in red below.

 

Licence History

5.4       Grazing Licence - A grazing licence was issued in March 2006 with the Licensee given notice in August 2011.

5.5       Gravel Pit Extraction Access Agreement – Fulton Hogan Limited entered into an agreement with the Council for the purposes of Quarrying Operations commencing on 3 August 2011.  The Agreement was for a term of five (5) years and has been rolling over on a monthly basis.

5.6       Fulton Hogan also held an Access Agreement for a parcel of land at 226 Hasketts Road.  The quarrying operation ceased in January 2015 and Fulton Hogan have reinstated the land.

5.7       The Agreement provides for royalty payments based on all pit-run materials extracted from the Reserve.  The royalties are based on current market values assessed by an independent registered valuer.

5.8       Fulton Hogan has approached the Council expressing a desire to enter into a new Agreement.

Demand for Aggregate

5.9       Fulton Hogan currently operate a gravel extraction operation across the road from the Reserve (as seen in the image above).

5.10    Following the recent earthquake events, the demand for aggregate has remained high.  In the short term, it is understood that there is a projected shortfall of aggregate resources in close proximity to Christchurch.

5.11    Fulton Hogan has expressed a desire to continue to extract the remaining gravel from the Reserve.  At the cessation of extraction, Fulton Hogan will be required to undertake obligations to rehabilitate the site.

Extraction Plan

5.12    Fulton Hogan have extracted gravel from the Reserve for the last five (5) years.

5.13    Environment Canterbury resource consent conditions limit the amount of gravel that can be extracted.  Resource Consent CRC072440 expires on 3 May 2042. 

5.14    Staff  have checked with both Environment Canterbury and the Council’s Compliance Team.  There are no non-compliance issues with Fulton Hogan’s activities at this site.

5.15    Current extraction has occurred to five (5) metres below ground level and is permitted to a depth of eight (8) metres below ground level.

5.16    The site measures approximately 200 metres by 180 metres which should yield approximately 108,000m3 cubic metres of remaining material.  The expected timeframe for this extraction is approximately three and one-half (3½) years.

5.17    Over the last five years, gravel extraction has averaged out at 35,000m3 per year.

Rehabilitation of the Reserve

5.18    Any new Access Agreement will continue to have provision for rehabilitation of the site.  This includes provisions for repairing any damage caused to the land as well as fulfilling the requirements of the Land Use Consent, Water Discharge Permit, shaping the land, reinstating fences, tracks and any other improvements existing prior to and removed or destroyed as a result of the quarrying operations.  These obligations apply for as long as Fulton Hogan holds the access rights.

Dealing Unilaterally with Fulton Hogan

5.19    Fulton Hogan is established on site with their main activities on adjacent land.

5.20    The Council could choose to go to the open market and offer the site for tender for gravel extraction in accordance with the guidelines set out in the “Lease Policy for the Creation of New Leases and Extensions Requests Prior to Expiry – Property” approved on 10 December 2015.

5.21    While this above Policy does not contemplate gravel extraction as an example for dealing unilaterally when creating a new lease, recognition should be given to the costs incurred by Fulton Hogan in establishing the gravel pit operation.

5.22    To publically tender a new opportunity in the open market could provide extensive cost saving benefits to any other party expressing interest in that activity.   As there is only sufficient gravel extraction for an estimated 3½ years, it is more beneficial to deal with Fulton Hogan who already have an established relationship with the Council in relation to the Access Agreement and their previous Agreement held for Hasketts Road.

5.23    In accordance with the Public Bodies Leases Act 1969, the Agreement will not be for a term greater than five (5) years.

Delegations

5.24    The Council, as administering body, has the authority to grant new leases on reserves pursuant to section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.25    The Council has delegated to Community Boards, the authority for the  granting of leases or licences on reserves pursuant to section 61 of the Reserves Act 1977.  The proposed Access Agreement will be granted under the provisions of section 61 (2) of that Act.


 

6.   Option 1 – Grant New Access Agreement Licence (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Grant new Access Agreement Licence to Fulton Hogan Limited for a term of five (5) years with provision for site remediation at the end of the term.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The residents and ratepayers of Christchurch are indirectly affected by this proposal.  Fulton Hogan are specifically affected by this option due to the need for gravel and the cost savings in extracting material from nearby supplies.  Their views are supportive of this proposal.  Consultation with the community has not been undertaken.  The requirement to publically advertise this proposal is not required as the activities comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1   Inconsistency – silent in the Annual Plan

6.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – as above

6.6.3   Amendment necessary – gravel extraction activity inclusion in Annual Plan

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – document preparation costs to be met by Fulton Hogan

6.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – no costs to the Council for the duration of term

6.9       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.10    The Access Licence Agreement will be prepared by the Council’s Legal Services staff.

6.11    As the Agreement is not being publicly tendered, it cannot be granted for a term greater than five (5) years to adhere to the Public Bodies Leases Act 1969.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.12    There is a risk that Fulton Hogan will not rehabilitate the site.

6.13    Risk – contractual obligations not met caused by Fulton Hogan not fulfilling the contract.  This will result in the Council rehabilitating the site and recovering reasonable costs and expenses in doing so.

6.13.1 Treatment: Granting a new Access Agreement with continued provision for rehabilitation of the site at the end of the term and confirmation and agreeance of an action plan to the satisfaction of the Operations Manager for Regional Parks.

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

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board resolution and preparation of a new Agreement

6.15    Implementation timeframe – Two months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Helps fulfil Fulton Hogan’s commitments to the rebuild of Christchurch and Canterbury.

·   Revenue to the Council through royalty payments.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Limited amount of material available for extraction – once it is removed there is no more available.

7.   Option 2 – Terminate Current Access Agreement and Make Good

Option Description

7.1       Give notice to Fulton Hogan to cease extraction activities and make good the site as per the obligations in the current Access Agreement.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The residents and ratepayers of Christchurch are indirectly affected by this proposal.  Fulton Hogan are specifically affected by this option due to the need for gravel and the cost savings in extracting material from nearby supplies.  Their views would not support this proposal.  Consultation with the community has not been undertaken. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – silent in the Annual Plan

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – as above

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – not required

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – No direct cost to the Council

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Ongoing maintenance of the Reserve once the site has been cleared and rehabilitated.

7.9       Funding source – Regional Parks operational budgets for ongoing maintenance.

Legal Implications

7.10    The current Access Agreement sets out the provisions for rehabilitation of the site. 

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    There is a risk that Fulton Hogan will not rehabilitate the site if they no longer hold access rights.

7.12    Risk – contractual obligations not met caused by Fulton Hogan not fulfilling contract.  This will result in the Council rehabilitating the site and recovering reasonable costs and expenses in doing so.

7.12.1 Treatment: Granting a new Access Agreement with continued provision for rehabilitation of the site at the end of the term and confirmation and agreeance of an action plan to the satisfaction of the Operations Manager for Regional Parks.

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

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board resolution and notification to Fulton Hogan.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – approximately 6 to 12 months to rehabilitate the site.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reserve is returned to a natural state.

·   Small quantity of gravel remains underground for future generations to use.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of revenue to the Council.

·   Increased costs to local authorities, contractors, developers and residents due to the costs in sourcing gravel from other regions.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

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

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

9.        Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund 2016/17 - Applications - Iris Taramai, Emily Cox and Gemma Rowe

Reference:

17/344840

Contact:

Emily Toase

emily.toase@ccc.govt.nz

941 5216

 

 

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 applications received for funding from the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $2,458 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider applications for funding received from Iris Taramai, Emily Cox and Gemma Rowe.

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 $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Iris Taramai towards attending the Softball 2017 International Friendship Series in Brisbane, Australia in July 2017.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Emily Cox towards attending the International Future Problem Solving completion in Wisconsin, U.S.A in June 2017.

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $200 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Gemma Rowe towards attending the Spirit of Adventure Trust Trophy Voyage in Auckland in June 2017.

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Iris Taramai

4.1       Iris Taramai is a 15 year old from Hornby who has been selected to attend the Softball Australia 2017 International Friendship Series in Brisbane from 30 June to 8 July 2017.

4.2       The Softball Australia Friendship Series is a longstanding annual event which provides youth squads with development opportunities and experience through competing in a high performance environment. The event also serves as a platform for talent identification for aspiring national athletes. 

4.3       Iris has been playing softball for Riccarton Softball Club since she was four years old and as well as winning the league for the 2016 season, she also competed as part of the Under 15s Canterbury team winning the South Island Tournament and her Under 17 Canterbury team was the winner in of the Mainland Shield Tournament.

4.4       Currently, part of the New Zealand Under 15 Development Squad, Iris would like to eventually be selected for the New Zealand White Sox and will use the International Friendly Series to continue to develop her skills and use the experience to inspire younger members of the Riccarton Softball Club to continue their practice.

4.5       As well as playing softball, Iris also enjoys football, reading, and art, and is currently a House Leader, part of the School Council and University of Canterbury Student Army.

4.6       To fundraise for the 2017 International Friendship Series, Iris has been selling raffle tickets, bacon and organizing Lotto draws. She has raised $1,640 to date.

4.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for the Softball Australia International Friendship Series 2017:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Travel and accommodation

$1,340

Food and entertainment

$345

Van hire and fuel

$162

First Aid, Gifts, laundry, photos, entry fee and apparel

$353

                                                                                                 Total

$2,200

 

4.8       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

5.   Applicant 2 – Emily Alison Cox

5.1       Emily Cox is a 12 year old Selwyn House Primary School student who has been selected in a team of four students to represent New Zealand in the International Future Problem Solving competition.  The competition is to be held in La Crosse, Wisconsin, U.S.A, in June 2017.

5.2       Future Problem Solving is a programme in which teams are given a scenario that is set in the future.  The teams have to identify 16 challenges in the scene and then have to come up with an overall underlying problem as well as 16 solutions to solve the problem. The teams are only given the future scene at the time of the competition and have only two hours to gather all of the required information.

5.3       Last year this team won the national competition and this success invited them to compete in the international competition in 2017. The team has a 1.5 hour future problem-solving lesson each week and also spend additional time most days researching the selected topic. The competition topic for 2017 is biosecurity.  Closer to the time of the competition, they will spend extra time in preparation.  Part of this involves visiting local experts, having Skype meetings and going on trips around the city identifying current issues, looking at current solutions and coming up with possible future solutions.

5.4       Emily lives in Riccarton and spends her spare time dancing and playing netball.  She enjoys mathematics at school.

5.5       Emily believes that participation in this event will have future benefits for the community as it will have helped to create people who are trained to think critically and come up with a method to problem solve.  Furthermore, if one of the problems that has been used for a scenario occurs, there will be solutions already prepared that could work in real life.

5.6      
The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Emily:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfares

$2,510

Competition costs (including accommodation during event)

$800

Team Jacket

$60

Travel Insurance

$230

Accommodation and meals outside of event

$1,100

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$4,700

Amount requested from Community Board

$1,000

 

5.7       Emily and her team have been fundraising through sausage sizzles, fundraising evenings at Hoyts and Winnie Bagoes and a school mufti day.

5.8       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

6.   Applicant 3 – Gemma Rowe

6.1       Burnside High School are seeking funding support to send Gemma Rowe as one of ten young people on the Spirit of Adventure Trophy Voyage in Auckland from 12 to 16 June 2017.  Eight of the students live in the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood wards and the other lives in the Papanui-Innes area.

6.2       The Spirit Trophy Voyages are for Year 10 students.  Teams of ten students from four schools, with one teacher per school, compete against each other over a period of five days. 

6.3       All events include teamwork, problem solving, ship-handling and aquatic sports in and on the water.  Teams will go ashore for a day and complete a task against others that will involve ingenuity, leadership and reward.  The ship environment will help build self-confidence and ability to work in a team.  Through the programme, students will learn the fundamentals of seamanship, water safety, sailing and marine sciences including navigation, meteorology and conservation.

6.4       Gemma Rowe is a 14 year old living in Templeton.  While she plays a number of sports, she is particularly talented in karate being a teenage black belt.  She intends to attain her adult black belt in two years.  She also plays touch and netball.

6.5       Gemma is looking forward to meeting new people on this trip and having a great experience on the boat.

6.6       The group is undertaking fundraising activities including rubbish clean-ups and a quiz night.

6.7       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs per participant.

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Trophy Voyage fee

$850

Airfares

$273

Airport transfers

$24

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$1,147

 

6.8       This is the fourth time that Burnside High School has applied for funding for students to participate in this event, but the first time for a student who is resident in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton area.

6.9       The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board have granted $200 to each student.

1.1.   

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

10.    New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 - Board Members' Attendance

Reference:

17/371712

Contact:

Peter Dow

peter.dow@ccc.govt.nz

941 6501

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report is to seek Board approval for four members of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to attend the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 in Methven from 11 to 13 May 2017.

1.2       In order to secure the ‘early bird’ lower registration rate, and accommodation, staff have taken steps to arrange bookings with the venue, for four members to attend the conference.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve the attendance of Board members Helen Broughton, Ross McFarlane, Debbie Mora and Mike Mora to the New Zealand Community Boards Conference 2017 in Methven from 11 to 13 May 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The conference is being held at the Heritage Centre in Methven from 11 to 13 May 2017. The conference theme is ‘Making 1 + 1 = 3” and is designed to bring together the Community Boards of New Zealand to share practice and to help improve the understanding and work of community boards.

4.2       The short programme (refer Attachment A) includes keynote speakers and interactive workshops hosted by experts. The wide range of speakers selected for the conference will provide the opportunity for delegates to participate fully and take away ideas that they can apply within their own environment.

4.3       The New Zealand Community Boards Executive Committee will also present the Best Practice Awards which recognise significant contributions made by community boards to the process of achieving excellence in local governance.

4.4       The conference cost per attendee is $1,180 approximately for registration and accommodation. Travel reimbursement will be based on shared vehicle costs for those who will be accommodated in Methven.

4.5       The cost of attendance is provided for in the Board’s 2016-17 operational budget.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

New Zealand Community Board Conference 2017 Programme

51

 

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

26 April 2017

 

 

11.  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.

 

 

 

12.  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.