Social and Community Development Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social and Community Development Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 5 April 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

29 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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/

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

Social and Community Development Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social and Community Development Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social and Community Development Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Community housing, including- social housing, affordable housing (including rental), housing policy, tenancy service, homelessness and unresolved earthquake housing matters

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees/taskforce the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Community Housing to the Housing Taskforce for matters relating to Community housing, including- social housing, affordable housing (including rental), housing policy, tenancy service, homelessness and unresolved earthquake housing matters

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the multicultural strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 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.......................................................................................................................... 5

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

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 5

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

STAFF REPORTS

A       6.       Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Tiptree Cottage, 63 Savills Road, Harewood, Christchurch................................................................................................................... 11

A       7.       Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 209 Tuam Street, Christchurch................... 23

A       8.       Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 5 Norwich Quay......................................................................................................................................... 33

C       9.       Free Theatre Incorporated Application to the 2016/17 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund .............................................................................................................. 37

B       10.     Chairperson's Report of the Multicultural Subcommittee........................................ 41   

 

 


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 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 Social and Community Development Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 1 March 2017  be confirmed (refer page 6).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

 

Social and Community Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 1 March 2017

Time:                                    1.04pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

1 March 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

General Manager Customer & Community

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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 – Nil.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

As this was the first meeting of the Social and Community Development Committee, there were no previous minutes to confirm.

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       Martin Witt, Cancer Society and Heather Kimber, Canterbury District Health Board spoke regarding progress of Smokefree Canterbury’s Voluntary Smokefree Outdoor Dining Trial, where it began, initial response to the project and how it fits in with the Christchurch City Council’s support for Smokefree 2025.

             The Committee thanked Martin Witt and Heather Kimber for the deputation.

 

4.2       Claudia Reid spoke to the Committee on issues relating to the Botanic Gardens.

             The Committee thanked Claudia Reid for her deputation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Heritage Incentive Grant and Covenant Consent Approval for 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

 

Committee Comment

Dr Ian Lochhead of the Ngaio Marsh House and Heritage Trust was invited to the table to respond to any queries raised by the Councillors.  He invited Councillors to visit the house either on their own or as a group.

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00001

Joint Staff and Committee Recommendation

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $39,889 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 37 Valley Road, Cashmere.

2.         Note that the property is the subject of a conservation covenant and this report seeks covenant consent from Council for the works outlined below which are the subject of this grant application.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

7.   Multicultural Subcommittee Terms of Reference

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Subcommittee, as described in Attachment A.

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00002

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in this report.

2.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Multicultural Subcommittee, as described in Attachment A.

3.         Notes that Council staff will work with the Chair of the Subcommittee to carry out its responsibilities and activities as per the Terms of Reference.

4.         Appoints Councillor Livingstone to the Multicultural Subcommittee.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

8.   Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan

 

Committee Comment

Helen Kerr and Lisa Rimmer of Isthmus, Landscape Architects attended the meeting to outline the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Endorse the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00003

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.            Endorse the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

2.            Recommend to Council that it approve the Christchurch Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan.

 

Councillor Chen/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                              Carried

Councillor Johanson requested his vote against the resolution be recorded.

            

   

Meeting concluded at 2.43pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

   


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

6.        Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Tiptree Cottage, 63 Savills Road, Harewood, Christchurch

Reference:

17/145486

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

0272222782

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to recommend that Council approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for Tiptree Cottage at 63 Savills Road, Harewood.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for a Heritage Incentive Grant.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the dwelling and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $117,480 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 63 Savills Road, Harewood.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a 20 year limited conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·    Option 2 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the future protection of this highly significant heritage building, and its proposed use as a living museum. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A rare New Zealand example of an earth building, one of only three original cob buildings remaining in Christchurch, will be repaired and retained.

·    It is intended that the building will have a compatible use as a living museum, which will enable it to be maintained and protected, and allow public access.

·    With the completion of the works outlined, the Cottage will be repaired and upgraded, and the owners are committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This is a relatively large grant for a single building; however it is an investment in a rare and highly significant heritage building.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       Tiptree Cottage is scheduled as a Highly Significant (Group 1) Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed Category I by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Registration Number 282. The building is of high historical and social significance: it is a very original example of a modest colonial farmhouse and provides a record of the pioneering role of the farm in the development of irrigation in Canterbury. It is also significant for its long association with the Savill family, with this association further enhanced by three of the family’s descendants having become members of the Tiptree Cottage Trust.  The dwelling has high architectural, aesthetic, technological, and craftsmanship significance as a rare surviving example of a cob building in Christchurch and New Zealand; it is also unusual as an example of the translation of a vernacular British domestic house style in New Zealand’s local materials.  

5.2       Tiptree Cottage was completed around 1862 by the Savill family, who bought the 61 acre property (later enlarged to 86 acres) in Harewood in 1861. The cottage was unusual for its irregular plan, with two full floors and an attic space. On the south and east elevations there is a catslide roof down to the ground floor. The design may have been based on a vernacular English form familiar in Essex, or else it was William Savill’s particular innovation, but it distinguishes Tiptree Cottage from other cob buildings in Christchurch and New Zealand. The cottage was originally thatched, but was re-roofed in corrugated iron around 1900. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.   

5.3       The current owners of the building and the applicants for the grant are the Tiptree Cottage Charitable Trust. There are currently six trustees – three from the Gregg family who bought the property in 1963, and three who are descendants of the original builders of the cottage, the Savills. The Savill family occupied the dwelling from its construction in the 1860s until they sold it in 1939.

5.4       The total cost for the proposed repair and upgrade of the building (including heritage and non-heritage related costs) is estimated at $237,000, excluding GST. There is no insurance payment associated with these works; however once completed the owners will be able to obtain ongoing building insurance. The applicants have secured a grant of $45,000 from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) to support the repair of the dwelling. The operational guidelines for Heritage Incentive Grants allow applicants to apply for additional grant assistance from other sources to fund the balance of the works required.

5.5       The Trust was established in 2010 to ensure the preservation of Tiptree Cottage for future generations. They plan to restore and upgrade the Cottage to enable it to re-open to the public as a living museum. The Trust is committed to this aim, and its members are suitably experienced to be able to implement their plans with one having a degree in Art History, one running a gallery, and one with experience in museum events management. The Trust has access to historic furniture and decorative items, including items from the Savill family, for use in the Cottage for this purpose.

5.6       The proposed works have been specified by the Conservation Architect Dave Pearson and a    heritage engineer, Win Clark. They comprise of structural upgrades and repairs to the Cottage, and include improving drainage, strengthening the walls, repairing the cob, reinstating the lime plaster and repainting the Cottage. Maintenance and repair will also be carried out on the windows, weatherboards and doors. The works will ensure the ongoing retention and increased resilience of this significant heritage building, and enable it to have a sustainable use as a living museum.

 

Photograph Tiptree Cottage, 63 Savills Road, January 2013, G Wright

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works are to structurally upgrade and repair the building. They involve strengthening the cob with stainless steel ties and threaded rods, repairs to damaged and failing areas of cob and re-plastering with lime plaster. The existing timber windows and doors will be repaired as necessary and decayed timber weatherboards will be repaired or replaced. Repainting is also required. A new drainage system is to be installed around the perimeter of the Cottage to ensure effective removal of water from the base of the cob walls, preventing further ongoing damage to the cob.

6.2       Overall the works being proposed are priced at $237,000 excluding GST. All relevant costs of the   heritage related works are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Preliminary & General & Contingency

$77,970

Strengthening upgrades

$56,810

External wall repair – weatherboards, cob, lime plastering, and

painting

$26,510

Window and door repair

$3,300

Internal wall repair – cob, lime plastering and lime wash

$19,500

External drainage works

$7,870

Professional fees/consents

$43,000

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$234,960

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical, and social significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological significance. Its ongoing repair, retention and upgrade to enable public access is worthy of support. A grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

$117,480

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch – Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha

·           The Replacement Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$55,931

Proposed grant to 63 Savills Road, Harewood

$117,480

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$288,068

 

6.8       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.9       Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.10    The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.12    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A 20 year limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.14    The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent or approved Heritage Works Plan will be required for these works.

6.15    The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will help to ensure the future protection of this highly significant heritage building, and its proposed use as a living museum. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   A rare New Zealand example of an earth building, particularly unusual in its design and one of only three original cob buildings remaining in Christchurch, will be repaired and retained.

·   It is intended that the buildings will have a compatible use as a living museum, which will enable it to be maintained and protected, and allow public access.

·   With the completion of the works outlined, the building will be repaired and upgraded, and the owners are committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant for a single building, however it is an investment in a rare and highly significant heritage building.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 but with a lower level of financial support to the project. Previous HIG Grant support to other projects in the city has varied but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($70,488) is shown in the table below. 

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street

$127,415

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$23,933

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$55,931

Proposed grant to 63 Savills Road, Harewood

$70,488

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$351,016

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Would leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a highly significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

·   The risk that the owner would delay the works or would scale back some of the heritage conservation components.

·   The risk that the owners as a Trust could not raise additional funding and the building would not be upgraded to allow a viable use with public access.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Heritage Significance, 63 Savills Road

18

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

7.        Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 209 Tuam Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/194470

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to recommend Council approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work at the building at 209 Tuam Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building owner.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council to:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive grant of up to $55,931 for conservation and maintenance work for the protected heritage building located at 209 Tuam Street, Christchurch.

2.         Note that payment of this grant is subject to the applicants entering a 20 year limited conservation covenant with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The building will continue to be a notable feature in the street scene and townscape of Christchurch.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a relatively large grant to a single building however the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 209 Tuam Street, is listed as a Group 1 'Highly Significant' building in the New Christchurch District Plan. The building is not registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). Refer to Attachment A "Statement of Significance" for further information.

5.2       The current owner of the building and applicant for the grant is ‘Handmade HFS Limited’. The building has been the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding. This was a grant of $12,067 to assist with a new roof and the removal of redundant water tanks in early 2012.

Photograph, December 2014. M. Vairpiova.

 

 

6.   Option 1 - Heritage Incentive Grant of 50% of the cost of the repair and maintenance works (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The building is a four storey reinforced concrete structure with stone cladding and steel framed windows. The original building dates from 1932 with the extension to the west side dating from the 1960’s. The building was designed as a post office and telegraph service centre with staff offices above by the Government Architect, John Mair, in a stripped classical style. The building has a substantial, relatively solid, base which supports the three storey high fluted pilasters which in turn support a large roof level frieze and balustrade. The lower levels are formed in unpainted stone but the upper levels were always painted. The building was designed with substantial foundations and a strong super-structure in response to lessons learnt from the Napier earthquake of 1931.

6.2       The building sustained only minor damage in the recent series of Canterbury earthquakes and was quickly reopened for use in 2012. The layout of the building changed at this time with the former video rental store ‘Alice in Videoland’ moving from the ground floor of the main building into the 1960’s extension. The ‘C1 Espresso’ café formerly located across High Street replaced ‘Alice in Videoland’ on the ground floor.

6.3       The building requires regular painting and due to the scale of the building this is an onerous task, requiring full scaffolding and a specialist painting contractor. The proposed grant would support the work associated with retaining the heritage fabric of the building. The owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the building.

6.4       All relevant costs of the works have been summarized as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Preparation, painting of the façade and restoration of original features including roof top flagpoles.

$111, 862

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$111,862

 

6.5       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent)

$55,931

 

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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 Māori, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

6.9.1      Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

6.9.2      Christchurch District Plan

6.9.3      Heritage Conservation Policy

6.9.4      Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

6.9.5      New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

6.9.6      International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for

Financial Implications

Cost of Implementation -

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800.00

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312.00

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415.00

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326.00

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889.00

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$55,931

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$405,548

 

6.10    The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.12    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.13    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A Limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant with a life of twenty years being suggested as an appropriate length of time.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the future protection and ongoing use of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to be a notable feature in the street scene and townscape of Christchurch.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant to a single building however the sum is not a significant proportion of the total grant funds for the 2016/2017 financial year.

7.   Option 2 - A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($33,558) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$740,800.00

Approved grant to 34 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$13,462.00

Approved grant to 13 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

$29,250.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch (War Memorial)

$3,312.00

Approved grant to 75 St David’s Street, Lyttelton

$127,415.00

Approved grant to 311 Montreal Street, Christchurch

$3,667.00

Approved grant to 39 Kahu Road, Christchurch

$62,326.00

Proposed grant to 37 Valley Road, Cashmere

$39,889.00

Proposed grant to 209 Tuam Street

$33,558

Total Available Funds 2016/2017

$427,921

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects. However, the end of the financial year is approaching and any funds remaining unallocated will not be carried forward for other projects next year.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building maintenance project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the Central City and Banks Peninsula.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

209 Tuam Street Statement of Significance

29

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

8         Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 5 Norwich Quay

Reference:

17/220717

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.Smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to seek approval from Council for an extension of time of one year for a previously approved Heritage Incentive Grant for the heritage building located at 5 Norwich Quay, Lyttelton, the former Lyttelton Harbour Board building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the requirements of the Operational Guidelines and Policy of the Heritage Incentive Grant Scheme. This requires approval for extensions of time in the uptake of approved Heritage Incentive Grants.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the previous Council approval for the grant and the level of funding involved in the project being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council to:

1.         Approve an extension of time of one year for the uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for 5 Norwich Quay, Lyttelton. The new completion date for the project would be 23 March 2018.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       A heritage incentive grant of $333,548 was approved by the Community Housing and Economic Development Committee on 3 September 2015 and by Council on 24 September 2015 to assist with works to the heritage building at 5 Norwich Quay, Lyttelton.  Written notice of the grant approval was sent to the applicants and owners of the property on 2 October 2015.

4.2       The Operational Guidelines state that "Grant money is available for a period of 18 months from the date of written approval of the grant. This period will only be extended with the written consent of the Community, Recreation and Culture Committee."

4.3       This complex project involved the replacement of the upper storey of the former Harbour Board Building which was removed following significant earthquake damage. The repair and rebuild works covered by the grant have been underway for most of the past year but have taken longer than anticipated to complete. This has been due largely to difficulties with the design of the first floor extension and how it relates to the retained heritage fabric of the ground floor (see further discussion below). Consequently the applicants are seeking an extension of time to enable them to continue with the completion of the works to this very important heritage building.

 

5.   Context/Background

Norwich Quay 5 - former Harbour Board - 2012-09-18

Photograph of 5 Norwich Quay, September 2012

Brief History of the building and renovation project

5.1       The Lyttelton Harbour Board Building was designed in 1879 for the Harbour Board by the Christchurch architect Frederick Strouts in a Venetian Gothic style. The building facades were formed in high quality brickwork with details added in plaster. These details included roof top and mid-façade richly decorated cornices along with 'eyebrow' features above the arched windows. The building has a splayed north-west corner and this is the location of the main entrance which was emphasised with an unusual triangular shaped brick gable feature. At ground floor level there is a large painted plaster section which includes double columns either side of the main entrance. The ground floor windows are large sash windows with deep reveals. The building originally had a parapet which concealed the simple corrugated iron pitched roof. The basement had exposed brick arches.

5.2       The function of the building has changed over the years from the Harbour Board Offices with Boardroom above, up until 1962, to a café with offices on the first floor. However, the building's principal façades remained unaltered and the interior retained much of the original materials including the staircase and the panelling to the boardroom. In the early 2000's an extension was added on the southern side of the building in a contrasting brutalist style with exposed aggregate concrete panels. However, this extension is clearly separated from the brick building with a deep recess and a section of glazed wall on the western façade. Hence the original brick portion still reads as a separate building when viewed from the street.

5.3       Although the building did not collapse, the earthquake damage to the structural masonry of the building was significant enough to warrant the careful removal of the upper portion including the parapet and the roof. A temporary roof was installed over the remaining ground floor which has been effective at protecting and preserving the building fabric below.

5.4       The owners are in the process of adding a new first floor to the building with a footprint that will closely match the one below. The proposed additions and internal modifications have been approved by Council under RMA 92027078. The project will see the creation of a new first floor which echoes the form, rhythm and scale of the original lost element. However, it will not be in brick but in a lighter weight aerated concrete material with a plaster finish. The grant will support the work associated with retaining the heritage fabric of the building. With the completion of the works outlined, the building will meet the Building Code requirements and the owner is committed to the reuse and maintenance of the building.

5.5       The building’s owners and the applicants for the grant are ‘Water Qual Limited’.

5.6       As noted above, the works have taken longer than anticipated by the contractor and building owner due to the need to design and modify architectural and engineering details as the work progresses. The new portions of the building on the first floor have to connect to the remaining heritage fabric of the ground floor but the condition of the existing material was unknown until the later stages of the project when other fabric was removed. The roof of the new building also had to be redesigned at a relatively late stage due to steelwork size changes which effected the plans to deal with rainwater removal. All of these issues have now been successfully resolved with no adverse impact on the project overall.

Photograph, 2011 with original upper storey still in place.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Urban Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

9.        Free Theatre Incorporated Application to the 2016/17 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund

Reference:

17/279907

Contact:

Mike Pursey

Mike.pursey@ccc.govt.nz

941 6386

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social and Community Development Committee to consider an application to the 2016/17 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund, from The Free Theatre Incorporated and to approve or decline this application.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report to the Social and Community Development Committee, was requested by the Council at its meeting of 2 March 2017, where the Council resolved to:

·    Refer the application from the Free Theatre Incorporated for Free Theatre – Wages of the Manager and Administrator to the Social and Community Development Committee for consideration and delegates the decision on this application to the Committee.

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 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 Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information contained within this report and the attached decision matrix.

2.         Consider this funding request from the Free Theatre Incorporated.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Following the Council meeting of 2 March 2017 where staff recommended to decline the Free Theatre’s request for Discretionary Response Funding, Council resolved to refer the application to the Social and Community Development Committee for further consideration and delegated authority to this Committee to approve or decline the application.

4.2       At the time of writing this report, the balance remaining in the 2016/17 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Funds is $48,528. There are two further applications awaiting decision with staff recommendations totalling $8,300. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Application to the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund – The Free Theatre Inc.

5.1       The Free Theatre submitted an application to the 2016/17 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund, requesting $23,000 towards the salaries for its Administrator and Manager. Staff assessed the application and put forward to Council a staff recommendation to decline the application for funding.

5.2       The organisation was approved a grant of $7,000 from the 2016/17 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund towards the salary of its Administrator, therefore the Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund staff panel recommended to decline this application.

5.3       Specific information about the Free Theatre Inc. and this application for funding is contained within the attached decision matrix.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Free Theatre Inc. - Decision Matrix

39

 

 

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

Mike Pursey - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Claire Phillips - Manager Community Support

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

 

10.    Chairperson's Report of the Multicultural Subcommittee

Reference:

17/237710

Contact:

Jimmy Chen

jimmy.chen@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Social and Community Development Committee with a copy of the minutes of the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held on 3 March 2017.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Chairperson’s report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The Multicultural Subcommittee held a meeting on Friday 3 March 2017, and the minutes from that meeting are attached for the Social and Community Development Committee’s information.

3.2       In addition, the Multicultural Subcommittee members asked staff to liaise with the relevant community networks/forums about the Multicultural Subcommittee and the process those networks/forums would take to meet with the Subcommittee.

3.3       The Multicultural Subcommittee members asked staff to update them regularly on the progress of the Multicultural Strategy.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Multicultural Subcommittee - Draft Minutes - 3 March 2017

42

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Customer and Community

  


Social and Community Development Committee

05 April 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator