Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 27 June 2017

Time:                                    4.30pm

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Helen Broughton

Natalie Bryden

Vicki Buck

Jimmy Chen

Catherine  Chu

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

21 June 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

27 June 2017

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 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.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 4

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 4   

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       6 to 8 Brynley Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions........................................ 17

C       8.       Hendersons Road - Bus Stop Relocation..................................................................... 23

C       9.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton - Parking Restrictions at Existing Bus Stops.................. 31

BA     10.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Property Review Process.................................. 45

B       11.     Riccarton Bus Exchange - Bylaw to Address Loitering Issues .................................... 77

C       12.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund 2016-17 - Applications - Thomas Mackintosh and ChrisJohn Dequita............................................................................. 85

B       13.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 88

C       14.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 89  

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 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, 13 June 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

 

The public forum will be held at 5.30pm.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Deputations may be heard on a matter or matters covered by a report on this agenda and approved by the Chairperson.

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

 

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 13 June 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

Anne Galloway

Ross McFarlane

Debbie  Mora

 

 

13 June 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Watson

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 8258

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00157

That the apology received for absence from Catherine Chu, be accepted.

Natalie Bryden/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00158

That the minutes of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board meeting held on Tuesday 23 May 2017, be confirmed.

Natalie Bryden/Ross McFarlane                                                                                                                            Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

4.1       BIBIANA STREET AND AIDANFIELD DRIVE

             Allan Goulstone, Secretary of the Anthony Wilding Retirement Village Residents’ Group,  and Diana Hanafin Village Manager, addressed the Board requesting that consideration be given to (a) extending the existing no stopping restriction on the west side of Bibiana Street and, (b) for a bus shelter to be provided on the north side of Aidanfield Drive opposite the complex.

             In support, the deputees tabled two petitions, the prayers of which read:

1.    We would ask the Christchurch City Council to extend the No Parking dotted yellow lines on the west side of Bibina Street for 20 metres from the existing area opposite the entrance to Corbett Crescent. This would protect Vehicles existing Corbett Crescent and turning either left or right from faster traffic exiting the roundabout at the intersection of Bibina Street and Aidanfield Drive. There have been a number of “near misses” in this area due to cars being parked on Bibna Street in the area described.

2.    We would ask the Christchurch City Council, Metro Buses and any other constituted body that may be involved in this decision to install a bus shelter on the north side of Aidanfield Drive opposite the Village gate which is alongside Town House 12. This shelter wold protect our residents, area residents and school children from the weather while they wait for the number 60 service bus.

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Allan Goulstone and Diana Hanafin for their presentation.

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00159

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided:

1.         That the deputation from the Anthony Wilding Retirement Village representatives, and the two tabled petitions, be received, and further that the matters raised be referred to staff for consideration and response back to the Board.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

4.2       BOAT SAFETY AT NAVAL POINT, LYTTELTON PROJECT

             James Ensor and Eden Husband, addressed the Board regarding the Boat Safety at Naval Point, Lyttelton Project.

             After questions from members the Chairperson thanked James Ensor and Eden Husband for their presentation.

             Members indicated their general support for the project and asked that staff provide information back to the Board on the status of project related funds held by the former Banks Peninsula District Council. 

 

4.3       HALSWELL DOMAIN ACTION GROUP

             Geoff Feasey and Anya Besley, on behalf of the Halswell Domain Action Group, addressed the Board regarding the Halswell Skate and Recreation Parks – Landscape Concept Plans report

             After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Geoff Feasey and Anya Besley for their deputation.

             Item 15 of these minutes details the Board’s decision on this matter. 

 

15. Halswell Skate and Recreation Parks - Landscape Concept Plans

 

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and also tabled a Noise Assessment Report from Marshall Day dated June 2017.

The Board also had regard to the submission made by the deputation in Item 4.3 above.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00160 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

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

1.         Receive the tabled Noise Assessment Report from Marshall Day dated June 2017.

2.         Approve the landscape concept plan for a skate and recreation park at Halswell Domain, as referred to in Attachment C of the staff report.

Mike Mora/Anne Galloway                                                                                                                                    Carried

Helen Broughton requested that her vote be recorded against the above decision.

 

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00161

3.         Approve the landscape concept plan for a skate and recreation park at Knights Stream Park, as referred to in Attachment F of the staff report.

Mike Mora/Anne Galloway                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

 

14. Picton Reserve - New Swing and Slide

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Receive the information.

2.         Consider using the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund for a new swing and slide at Picton Reserve.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00162

Part C

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

1.         Receive the information in the Picton Reserve – New Swing and Slide staff report.

2.         Fund the provision of a new swing and slide at the Picton Reserve at an estimated cost of $11,600 from its Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund and 2016-17 Ward Enhancement Fund.

Debbie Mora/Vicki Buck                                                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.  

 

6.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive the correspondence from the Halswell Residents’ Association regarding local planning matters.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00163

Part B

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

1.         Receive the correspondence from the Halswell Residents’ Association regarding local planning matters.

2.         Invite the Halswell Residents' Association to request a briefing about its planning concerns from the Council's consent staff.   

Anne Galloway/Debbie Mora                                                                                                                                Carried

 

10. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Proposed Road Names - Quarry View

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00164 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to approve the following road and right-of-way names:

1.         Quarry View, 25 Provincial Road, Halswell (RMA/2016/3488)

·    Prospect Place

·    Foden Lane

·    Dennis Lane

Ross McFarlane/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

11. 299 Main South Road - Proposed P10, P30 and P120 Parking Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00165 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

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

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the southern side of the Main South Road commencing at a point 11 metres east of its intersection with Garvins Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 29 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 10 minutes on the southern side of the Main South Road commencing at a point 11 metres east of its intersection with Garvins Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the southern side of the Main South Road commencing at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Garvins Road and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

4.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the north eastern side of Garvins Road commencing at a point 14 metres southeast of its intersection with the Main South Road and extending in an south easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

5.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north eastern side of Garvins Road commencing at a point 14 metres southeast of its intersection with the Main South Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

Mike Mora/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

12. Sockburn Recreation Centre - Proposed Lease and Sub-Lease Agreements

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00166 (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.         Enter into a lease agreement with Squash Canterbury Incorporated pursuant to section 54 of The Reserves Act 1977, for a period of up to nine years, over that part of 134 Main South Road, Sockburn, described as being Sockburn Recreation Centre, having a footprint of approximately 900 square metres of land as depicted in Attachment A, subject to:

a.         Public notification under the Reserves Act 1977 being completed and no sustainable objections being received.

2.         Approve an application from Squash Canterbury Incorporated to sub-lease approximately 49 square metres of the Sockburn Recreation Centre, to Christchurch City Weightlifting Incorporated, having a footprint of approximately 49 square metres for a period of up to nine years less one day, as depicted more or less in Attachment B.

3.         Approve an application from Squash Canterbury Incorporated to sub-lease approximately 14 square metres of the Sockburn Recreation Centre, to Zone Fitness, having a footprint of approximately 14 square metres for a period of up to nine  years less one day, as depicted more or less in Attachment B.

4.         Recommends that the Chief Executive acting as the Minister of Conservation’s delegate, consent to the granting of the lease and sub-leases, as outlined in this report.

5.         In the event that there are objections through the notification process under section 119 of the Reserves Act 1977 that cannot be resolved and need to be determined through a hearing, then staff are delegated the authority to appoint a Hearings Panel that has the power to receive, consider, and determine any objections by rejecting or upholding them.

6.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the lease and sub-leases be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to manage and conclude all issues and processes associated with the above resolutions, including any determinations from a Hearings Panel.

Mike Mora/Vicki Buck                                                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

16. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Youth Development Fund - 2016/17 - Application - Casper Howell

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00167 (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 $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Casper Howell towards attending the Under 17 Australian Cadet Championship in Sabre Fencing in Perth, Australia, in July 2017.

Natalie Bryden/Ross McFarlane                                                                                                                            Carried

 

17. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Discretionary Response Fund 2016/17 – Applications - Catholic Parish of Hornby and Darfield, University of Canterbury Foundation and Anglican Parish of Upper Riccarton-Yaldhurst

 

Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $2,970 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Catholic Parish of Hornby and Darfield towards the purchase of uniforms for the St Bernadette's Samoan Youth Group.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $5,000 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the University of Canterbury Foundation towards Young Community Builders project implementation costs.

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $15,000 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Anglican Parish of Upper Riccarton-Yaldhurst as a contribution to the compliance costs for the renovation of St Peter’s Church.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00168

Part C

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

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $2,970 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Catholic Parish of Hornby and Darfield towards the purchase of uniforms for the St Bernadette's Samoan Youth Group.

Helen Broughton/Mike Mora                                                                                                                                Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00169

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $5,000 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the University of Canterbury Foundation towards Young Community Builders project implementation costs.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00170

3.         Approve the making of a grant of $15,000 from its 2016-17 Discretionary Response Fund to the Anglican Parish of Upper Riccarton-Yaldhurst as a contribution to the compliance costs for the renovation of St Peter’s Church.

 

4.         Approve the making of a grant of $15,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund to the Anglican Parish of Upper Riccarton-Yaldhurst as a contribution to the compliance costs for the renovation of St Peter’s Church.

Helen Broughton/Mike Mora                                                                                                                                Carried

 

18. Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - June 2017

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00171 (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 June 2017.

2.         Receive the information provided in the staff memorandum regarding Gallaghan Close, and note the intention to carry out consultation locally on proposed parking restrictions for reporting back to the Board for a decision in due course. 

Natalie Bryden/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

13. Licence for Gravel Extraction - 35 Miners Road

 

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.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00172

Part C

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved 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.

3.         Notes that from the Board site visit undertaken on 17 May 2017, Fulton Hogan’s offer to discuss with the Council in year 3 of the renewed Access Licence Agreement, matters such as ongoing leasing, sale, site rehabilitation and land management options.

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

7.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Standing Orders

 

Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Adopt the set of Standing Orders attached to the report, replacing the Board’s current Standing Orders.

3.         Resolve whether or not the Chairperson of the Board is to have a casting vote.

4.         Authorise the Chief Executive to approve any non-material changes that may be required before the new Standing Orders are published.

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00173

Part C

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

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Adopt the set of Standing Orders attached to the staff report, replacing the Board’s current Standing Orders.

Anne Galloway/Jimmy Chen                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00174

3.         Resolve that the Chairperson of the Board does not have a casting vote.

Vicki Buck/Ross McFarlane                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00175

4.         Authorise the Chief Executive to approve any non-material changes that may be required before the new Standing Orders are published.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

8.   Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Code of Conduct

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00176 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

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

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Adopt the Code of Conduct attached to the staff report, replacing the Board’s current Code of Conduct.

Helen Broughton/Vicki Buck                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

19. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

Board members exchanged information on matters of current interest.

 

 

20. Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00177

Part C

That at 7.11pm, the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 240 to 241 of the agenda, be adopted.

Mike Mora/Natalie Bryden                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 8.11pm

 

9.   Yaldhurst Village Subdivision - Dedication of Road - Sir John McKenzie Avenue

 

The Board received oral legal advice on this matter in the Public Excluded section of the meeting.

 

 

Staff Recommendations: 

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

1.         That Lots 601 (residential) and 613 (commercial) on LT 448725 will be dedicated under Section 349 of the Local Government Act 1974 as a road, in order for the road to vest.

2.         Note that a Deed of Indemnity will be executed by Infinity Yaldhurst Limited which will indemnify and keep indemnified the Council from all actions, proceedings and claims made by any land owner in relation to the Council accepting the dedication of Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725, as road.

3.         Also note that the Council shall not be required to issue a Section 224(c) Certificate under the Resource Management Act 1991 in respect to Lots 601 and 613 on LT 448725 until all the safety audit requirements as specified by the Council, and included in the Variations of the subdivision consent, have been physically built to the Council’s satisfaction.

4.         That the General Manager City Services be delegated authority to negotiate and enter into on behalf of the Council, such documentation required to implement the dedication.

 

 

Community Board Decided HHRB/2017/00178

Part A

Mike Mora moved that the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council:

1.         Option 2 of the staff report, namely, that the Council not agree to a dedication process and inform Infinity Yaldhurst Limited to pursue the matter through the Courts in accordance with the Property Law Act.

 

2.         That the Council agree to meet with the adjoining property owners to discuss options on a way forward regarding the Yaldhurst Village Subdivision.

 

The motion was seconded by Helen Broughton and on being put to the meeting was declared carried.

 

A division was requested and recorded as follows:

 

For:                           Mike Mora, Helen Broughton, Jimmy Chen, Ross McFarlane, and Debbie Mora

Against:                 Vicki Buck and Anne Galloway

Abstained:            Natalie Bryden

Mike Mora/Helen Broughton                                                                                                                                Carried

Vicki Buck and Anne Galloway requested that their votes against the above decision, be recorded.

 

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 8.35pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

Mike Mora

Chairperson

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

7.        6 to 8 Brynley Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/566961

Contact:

Edwin Tiong

edwin.tiong@ccc.govt.nz

941 8188

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of 'P30' parking restrictions at 6 to 8 Brynley Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to a request from the resident at 8 Brynley Street to have improved access to short term parking for visitors.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the south western side of Brynley Street commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Tower Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the south west side of Brynley Street commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Tower Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install P30 Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has been contacted by the resident of 8 Brynley Street seeking short term on-street parking to service the surrounding property.

5.2       It is sought that three unrestricted parking spaces fronting the property on Brynley Street be amended to P30 spaces to support customers and to support deliveries to nearby properties.

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

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Install P30 Parking Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

Replace three unrestricted parking spaces with three P30 parking spaces on the frontage of 6 to 8 Brynley Street, as shown on Attachment A.Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by consultation letter. One property owner responded by supporting the proposal. There has been no opposition received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $600 for the installation of marking, signage and pole.

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

6.8       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    Not applicable

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports the residents and adjacent business.

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing unrestricted parking spaces at 6 to 8 Brynley Street.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with community requests for short stay parking to support residents and business activity.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the residents and adjacent business.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

6 to 8 Brynley Street - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions - Plan

22

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Edwin Tiong - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

8.        Hendersons Road - Bus Stop Relocation

Reference:

17/355844

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941 6303

 

 

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 relocation of a bus stop on Hendersons Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated in response to the construction of a new road at the site of the current bus stop.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of the project against the  criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement 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:

Revoke old bus stops

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Hendersons Road commencing at a point 74 metres north west of the prolongation of the north western kerb line of Rowley Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres, be revoked.

2.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south west side of Hendersons Road commencing at a point 140 metres north west of the prolongation of the north western kerb line of Rowley Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 26 metres, be revoked.

 

New bus stop

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south west side of Hendersons Road commencing at a point 140 metres north west of the prolongation of the north western kerb line of Rowley Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

4.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the south west side of Hendersons Road commencing at a point 148 metres north west of the prolongation of the north western kerb line of Rowley Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south west side of Hendersons Road commencing at a point 162 metres north west of the prolongation of the north western kerb line of Rowley Avenue and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of four metres.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.1 Contribute to increase number of trips made by public transport

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Relocate bus stop to 283 Hendersons Road (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Relocate bus stop to 269 Hendersons Road

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a bus stop that meets the minimum requirements recommended in the Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·     Maintains access to public transport to the general area.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removal of some on street parking.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       There is an unmarked bus stop outside 271 Hendersons Road, designated with a sign and pole.

5.2       The Halswell Commons subdivision is under construction at present, and is constructing a new road through 271 Hendersons Road, intersecting with Hendersons Road.

5.3       In order to maintain reasonable access to public transport to the area, the bus stop needs to be relocated to either side of this new road.

5.4       It is best practice to ensure that any new bus stop have a minimum of 26 metres clear kerbside space and a hard surface for passengers to disembark onto. In this case, part of the grass berm will be sealed to provide the hard surface and proposed road markings meet the minimum requirements.

5.5       Staff consulted on three options, shown in Attachment B:

5.5.1   Option 1: relocating the bus stop to 283 Hendersons Road (north of the new intersection.

5.5.2   Option 2: relocating the bus stop to 269 Hendersons Road (south of the new intersection),

5.5.3   Option 3: relocating the bus stop to 275 Hendersons Road (north of the new intersection)

5.6       Following consultation, Option 3 (275 Hendersons Road) was withdrawn due to objections from residents, the close proximity of the bus stop to the intersection, and a greater inconvenience to residents than the other proposed locations.

5.7       This bus stop is primarily a drop-off bus stop, but it is possible that the number of passengers catching the bus from here will increase in the future, as the bus route has recently been extended into Wigram Skies and connected to the shopping centre at The Landing commercial centre.


 

6.   Option 1 - Relocate bus stop to 283 Hendersons Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Relocate the bus stop to outside 283 Hendersons Road as detailed in Attachment A.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the bus service operator.

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 owners and occupiers of 267 to 283 Hendersons Road are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed parking restrictions.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand.  The consultation period commenced on 13 January 2017 and finished on 3 March 2017.

6.6       The property owner at 283 Hendersons Road phoned staff and understood that this was probably the best location for the bus stop around existing driveway locations and had some questions which staff answered, as below:

6.6.1   Q: The bus stop has low patronage at the moment, is this expected to increase in the future?

6.6.2   A: Staff responded that this may increase from the current two passengers per day but would not be expected to rise by much more than five or ten passengers per day.

6.6.3   Q: They would be concerned if a shelter were proposed

6.6.4   A: A shelter is not proposed at this location and is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

6.6.5   Q: Will the bus stop affect their ability to subdivide and develop the property in the future?

6.6.6   A: The bus stop should not affect being able to get a building consent or resource consent. Depending on the new driveway location, the bus stop may need to be altered slightly in the future, but this can be accommodated.

6.6.7   Q: General concerns about safety, pollution, litter and noise, and whether Council will contribute to building fencing or planting.

6.6.8   A: Council policy is that fencing and planting on private property bordering the road is the responsibility of the property owner. Council can provide on street rubbish bins that are emptied regularly if regular littering becomes a problem.

6.7       Environment Canterbury supports this option (Option 1).

6.8       Two objections were received to Option 2 (269 Hendersons Road), concerns raised included:

6.8.1   Temporary obstruction of sight lines by buses for any traffic on the new road

6.8.2   Obstruction of driveway

6.8.3   Concerns about the proximity of the bus stop to the new road

6.8.4   Concerns about the speed of vehicles along Hendersons Road

6.9       While any driveway and sight line obstructions will be brief and temporary, and the location of the bus stop is greater than the minimum required distance from an intersection, in light of these objections, Option 1 is preferred over Option 2.

6.10    The speed of vehicles along Hendersons Road was surveyed and the information passed on to the police for enforcement. Another resident later informed staff that there had been a police presence enforcing the speed limit.

6.11    Due to the construction timelines for the new road into Halswell Commons, the bus stop was relocated temporarily to outside 283 Hendersons Road in early April 2017 to maintain access to public transport until such a time as the Board can approve the final location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation – approximately $1,500

6.14    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Maintenance of road markings is covered by the existing maintenance budget and the impact will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.15    Funding source – Public Transport Minor Works

Legal Implications

6.16    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Community Boards??? (check with Peter).

6.17    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

6.18    Follows best practice by adhering to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

Risks and Mitigations    

6.19    Risk - Illegal parking caused by road users parking in the marked bus stop box and/or on the ‘No Stopping’ lines.  This will result in the bus stop being difficult or impossible to access for buses, buses stopping in the traffic lane or bypassing the bus stop altogether and inconveniencing passengers.

6.19.1 Treatment: Parking Enforcement and road users obeying the road rules.

6.19.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

6.20    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval for the road markings – the sign has already been relocated on a temporary basis.

6.21    Implementation timeframe - Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a bus stop that meets the minimum requirements recommended in the Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Maintains access to public transport to the general area.

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of some on street parking

7.   Option 2 – Relocate bus stop to 269 Hendersons Road

Option Description

7.1       Relocate the bus stop to outside 269 Hendersons Road, shown indicatively on Attachment B.

Significance

7.2       See sections 6.2 and 6.3

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See section 6.4.

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See sections 6.5 to 6.10

7.5       This option is inconsistent with community views and preferences.

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 – approximately $1,800

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Maintenance of road markings is covered by the existing maintenance budget and the impact will be minimal to the overall asset.

7.9       Funding source – Public Transport Minor Works

Legal Implications

7.10    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Community Boards???

7.11    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

7.12    Follows best practice by adhering to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    Risk - Illegal parking caused by road users parking in the marked bus stop box and/or on the ‘No Stopping’ lines.  This will result in the bus stop being difficult or impossible to access for buses, buses stopping in the traffic lane or bypassing the bus stop altogether and inconveniencing passengers.

7.13.1 Treatment: Parking Enforcement and road users obeying the road rules.

7.13.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

7.15    Implementation timeframe - Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a bus stop that meets the minimum requirements recommended in the Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Maintains access to public transport to the general area.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Removal of some on street parking

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

283 Hendersons Road - Proposed Bus Stop Relocation - Plan

29

b

Hendersons Road - Bus Stop Relocation Options

30

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

9.        Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton - Parking Restrictions at Existing Bus Stops

Reference:

17/411925

Contact:

Peter Rodgers

peter.rodgers@ccc.govt.nz

941 6303

 

 

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 alterations to road markings and parking restrictions for existing bus stops on Yaldhurst Road near Brodie Street (outside Villa Maria College), Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane (outside Ilam Flats), and Clarence Street near Dilworth Street, as detailed in Attachments A, B and C.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessing the impact of the project against the 10 criteria set out in the Significance and Engagement 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:

Yaldhurst Road near Brodie Street

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at its intersection with Brodie Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 73 metres, be revoked.

2.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the north side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at a point 25 metres east of its intersection with Brodie Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

3.         Approve the installation of a school bus only parking area on the north side of Yaldhurst Road commencing at a point 43 metres east of its intersection with Brodie Street and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres. This restriction to apply between the hours of 2pm to 3.30pm on school days only.

Clarence Street near Dilworth Street

4.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Clarence Street commencing at a point 72 metres north of its intersection with Peverel Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be revoked.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Clarence Street commencing at a point 72 metres north of its intersection with Peverel Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of four metres.

6.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the east side of Clarence Street commencing at a point 76 metres north of its intersection with Peverel Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres.

Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane

7.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 45 metres be revoked.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 26 metres.

9.         Approve that a marked bus stop be installed on the east side of Waimairi Road commencing at a point 26 metres south of its intersection with Homestead Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.10 Improve the accessibility of bus stops via a targeted review and improvement programme

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve alterations to three existing bus stops (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·     Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·     Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·     Addresses deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015)

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of on street parking spaces

 

5.   Context/Background

Bus Stop Guidelines Recommended bus stop layout

5.1       The Christchurch City Council Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) recommends that a kerbside bus stop be marked with a 14 metre bus stop box, plus eight metres of no stopping (broken yellow lines) on the entry to the bus stop and four metres of no stopping on the exit of the bus stop. This is a total of 26 metres. In some cases, bus stops can been marked with a longer bus stop box, and shorter no stopping provided the total of 26 metres is met. All of the existing bus stops in this report do not have the recommended minimum of 26 metres.

5.2       This allocation of additional kerbside road space for bus stops is reflected in the priorities in the Parking Strategy (2003), which states that kerbside road space should be allocated first for safety, traffic flow, pedestrian or cycle facilities and landscaping. Any leftover kerbside road space shall be allocated for parking, according to priority tables in sections 6 to 11 of the Parking Strategy. In all cases except industrial areas, bus stops are the top priority (in industrial areas, loading zones take priority over bus stops when required).

Background - Yaldhurst Road (State Highway 73) near Brodie Street

5.3       The bus stop on Yaldhurst Road near Brodie Street is marked with a length of 15 metres. There is a concrete streetlight pole next to the kerb near the southern end of the bus stop, which restricts the ability of buses to pull up as close to the kerb as possible, impacting the accessibility of this bus stop to mobility impaired passengers. This bus stop is not a timing point so buses only need to stop long enough to pick up or drop-off passengers.

5.4       Yaldhurst Road is a state highway. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is the road controlling authority for all state highways, and has delegated authority to install parking restrictions to the Christchurch City Council on State Highways in Christchurch, with the exception of no stopping lines. This proposal includes no stopping restrictions, which NZTA have agreed to resolve.

5.5       This bus stop is serviced by the 140 Mt Pleasant via Westfield regular scheduled bus route. Two of the school bus routes run by RedBus also depart from this bus stop, the 672 Riccarton to Rolleston and the 763 Upper Riccarton to Lincoln routes. The school buses generally arrive before 2.30pm and are scheduled to depart at 3.25pm.

5.6       In order to minimise any conflicts between the school buses and the scheduled buses, it is proposed to separate the scheduled bus stop (for the 140 route) and the school bus stop, and to provide sufficient kerbside parking space for all three buses. 

5.7       It is also proposed to install no stopping restrictions extending from the corner of Brodie Street to the bus stop, as in Attachment A. This will bring the bus stop up to the recommended length. Installing just the minimum recommended eight metres may lead to vehicles parking close to the intersection with Brodie Street, therefore it is proposed to install more than the recommended eight metres.

5.8       This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015).

Background - Clarence Street near Dilworth Street

5.9       The bus stop adjacent to 21 Dilworth Street (on Clarence Street) is marked with a length of 14 metres, plus 18 metres of no stopping on the entry to the bus stop, extending back to the intersection of Dilworth Street and Clarence Street. However, it does not have the recommended four metres of no stopping on the exit from the bus stop. This bus stop is serviced by the anticlockwise Orbiter bus route. This bus stop is not a timing point so buses only need to stop long enough to pick up or drop off passengers.

5.10    This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015).

5.11    It is proposed to extend the bus stop box by two metres and install four metres of no stopping on the exit of the bus stop as in Attachment B, which will bring it up to the recommended length.

5.12    The bus stop is proposed to be extended by two metres so that a whole number (one instead of one and a half) of parking spaces are left between the bus stop and the nearby driveway of 164 Clarence Street. This is to minimise the risk of vehicles parking illegally over the driveway or over no stopping lines when trying to squeeze into spaces too small for them.

Background - Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane (outside Ilam Flats)

5.13    The bus stop on Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane (outside Ilam Flats) is marked with a length of 17 metres. Due to high on street parking demand in general in the vicinity of the university, vehicles are often parked (legally) between the bus stop and Homestead Lane. This bus stop is not a timing point so buses only need to stop long enough to pick up or drop off passengers.

5.14    This bus stop is serviced by the anticlockwise Orbiter bus route. The Orbiter turns left onto Waimairi Road from Homestead Lane, and when vehicles are parked between Homestead lane and the bus stop, the bus is unable to pull up to the kerb properly and blocks part or all of the traffic lane when picking up or dropping off passengers.

5.15    This bus stop was identified as needing road markings extended in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015), and has been requested by bus drivers of the Orbiter route.

5.16    It is proposed to extend the bus stop two metres to the north (towards Homestead Lane), and install 10 metres of no stopping restrictions between the bus stop and the existing no stopping restrictions at the corner of Homestead Lane and Waimairi Road, as in Attachment C. There is insufficient space to leave any parking spaces between the bus stop and Homestead Lane. This will bring the bus stop up to the recommended length.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Approve alterations to three bus stops (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       As shown in Attachments A to C, approve the recommended bus stop alterations adjacent to Yaldhurst Road near Brodie Street (Outside Villa Maria College), Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane (outside Ilam Flats), and Clarence Street near Dilworth Street.

6.2       Attachment D shows the geographic context of the bus stops in Attachments A to C.

6.3       The type of bus stop provided for in all locations, is a kerb-side bus stop, located directly adjacent to the footpath.  Provision of the necessary entry taper, bus box and exit taper, that adheres to the recommended provisions as set out in the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) is achievable at all locations. 

6.4       There is a full height kerb present along the full length of the all bus stops. 

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consultation with adjacent property owners and occupiers, and engagement with Environment Canterbury as the bus service operator.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       The properties listed below and the neighbouring properties are those specifically affected by this option due to the proximity of the property to the proposed parking restrictions.  Consultation documentation was mailed and delivered by hand.  The consultation period commenced on Friday 7 April 2017 and finished on Friday 28 April 2017.

6.9       Environment Canterbury supports this proposal for all of the bus stops.

6.10    Yaldhurst Road near Brodie Street - Villa Maria College, RedBus and NZTA support this proposal.

6.11    Waimairi Road near Homestead Lane – no responses were received.

6.12    Clarence Street near Dilworth Street – a verbal response in support was received from the business at 164 Clarence Street, but no written responses were received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation – About $5,000

6.15    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - Maintenance of road markings is covered by the existing maintenance budget and the impact will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.16    Funding source – Public Transport Minor Works

Legal Implications

6.17    The Christchurch City Council, Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution.  The Council has delegated this authority for this part of the city to the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee.

6.18    The installation of any traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.  These markings will comply.

6.19    Follows best practice by adhering to the minimum recommendations of the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

Risks and Mitigations    

6.20    Risk - Illegal parking - caused by road users parking in the marked bus stop box and/or on the No Stopping lines.  This will result in the bus stop being difficult or impossible to access for buses, buses stopping in the traffic lane or bypassing the bus stop altogether and inconveniencing passengers.

6.20.1 Treatment: Parking Enforcement and road users obeying the road rules.

6.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is Low.

6.21    Risk: Vehicles park over the driveway of number164 Clarence Street, due to attempting to fit two parked vehicles into space that is only sufficient for one.

6.21.1 Treatment: The proposed parking restrictions further reduce the space available from the minimum required to upgrade the bus stop from nine metres to seven metres of parking between the bus stop and the driveway. This is sufficient for one standard sized vehicle to park, without leaving room that a second vehicle may attempt to fit into the remaining space.

6.21.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is at Low due to mitigation from the above treatment.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies  - Community Board Approval

6.23    Implementation timeframe - Work is expected to be completed within three months of the proposed parking restriction resolutions being approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Bus stop road markings adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009). 

·   Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility, as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

·   Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   Addresses deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015)

·   Provides a clear designated space for the two school buses to park on Yaldhurst Road outside Villa Maria College.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of on street parking spaces.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing, existing bus stops road marking are not amended to adhere to the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines.

Significance

7.2       See sections 6.4 and 6.5.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.3       See section 6.6

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       See sections 6.7 to 6.11.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Parking Strategy (2003), as it does not prioritise allocating kerbside road space for traffic flow and parking for public transport over parking for all other purposes.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       The insufficient length of a marked bus stop and no stopping restrictions does not adhere to the bus stop road marking recommendations as outlined in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    Risk - Vehicles legally park near the bus stop affect how the bus can pull into a bus stop in a safe and efficient manner, and how close to the kerb the stop can stop to pick-up or set-down passengers. The likelihood of this occurring is ‘likely’ to ‘almost certain’, due to the high demand for on street parking in the vicinity of the bus stops. The impact of this is on passenger accessibility (particularly mobility impaired passengers), bus line journey time efficiency, and intermittent partial blocking of traffic lanes, causing oncoming traffic to slow, change lanes, or overtake.

7.10.1 Treatment: No treatment possible as such parking is legal and permitted.

7.10.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is at least Medium to High due to the likelihood of the risk occurring.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not remove any on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The lack of bus stop road markings continues to not adhere to the recommended bus stop road markings as indicated in the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009).

·   Lack of adherence to the recommended bus stop length does not provide good passenger accessibility, nor provide improvements to the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop.

·   It does not address deficiencies identified in the Greater Christchurch Bus Stop Audit (2015).

·   It does not provide a clear designated space for the two school buses to park on Yaldhurst Road outside Villa Maria College.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Yaldhurst Road Bus Stop Alteration and School Bus Stop Plan for Board Approval

39

b

Clarence Street Bus Stop Alteration Plan for Board Approval

40

c

Waimairi Road Bus Stop Alteration Plan for Board Approval

41

d

Location Plans

42

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Peter Rodgers - Consultant

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

10.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards - Property Review Process

Reference:

17/386113

Contact:

Angus Smith

angus.smith@ccc.govt.nz

941 8502

 

 

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 formally receive the list of properties in their area that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased.

1.2       To initiate a process to review those properties for the purpose of making future use decisions.

1.3       To make early decisions about sites that are unlikely to have alternative uses, and may be considered suitable for investigation for disposal.

Origin of Report

1.4       This report is staff generated to follow up on a Council resolution of 12 May 2016 (CNCL/2016/00242) and related workshops held with the Community Boards.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined utilising the significance and engagement assessment worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive the information in this report.

2.         Commence the Board’s review process to identify if the properties in Attachments B, C and D should be retained for alternative public uses, retained for strategic purposes/future decisions, or considered for disposal.

3.         Being of the view that the sites listed below are unlikely to have alternative public uses or strategic purposes, and that the Board has sufficient information to form this preliminary view, recommends that the Council directs staff to commence investigation processes regarding the potential to dispose of the sites:

a.         ______________

4.         Allow for the inclusion of advice in a report to the Council, to conclude this review and provide comment to staff, within six months of resolving to commence the process.

5.         Note that the final report containing the outcome of the process will come back to the Board for recommendation to the Council.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Council has adopted a process for determining the future use of properties that are no longer being utilised for a public work i.e. delivering a service or activity.

4.2       That process has been socialised with Community Board’s on a couple of occasions and this report serves to formally commence that process.

4.3       A list of the properties in the Community Board’s area is attached.

4.4       The next steps following this report, are for the Community Board to either make some early decisions in respect of the specific properties, or develop and work through a process to develop alternative public uses to inform an options report in six months time.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council purchases properties for the delivery of a service/activity/public work. They are held and funded by the business unit (titular asset owner) delivering that service/activity or project.

5.2       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally purchased, it is incumbent on the Council to make a decision to determine the future use of that property.

5.3       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

5.4       In general terms, the Council should only hold land that is:

5.4.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.4.2   Held for strategic purposes; and

5.4.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.5       Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk. It also comes at a cost in terms of operating/holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets/money.

Process

5.6       A flow chart of the process is attached, but in summary is as follows.

5.7       When a property ceases to be held for the purpose of delivering the activity or service for which it was originally purchased then it is circularised around business units, Community Boards and possible stakeholders to assess and identify community needs and develop options for alternative public uses.

5.8       This is done on a portfolio basis annually, or as required.

5.9       A period of six months is provided to establish the alternative public uses and options.

5.10    The results are collated into an options report which would categorise properties into the following categories:

5.10.1 Retain for alternate public uses,

5.10.2 Retain for strategic purposes/future decisions, or

5.10.3 Consider for disposal

5.11    The Council then resolve on future use based on staff and Community Board recommendations.

5.12    Retaining the property for an alternative public use needs:

5.12.1 To be rationalised,

5.12.2 A clearly identified need,

5.12.3 To be supported by a sound and robust business case,

5.12.4 Aligned to the Council’s strategies,

5.12.5 Established funding in the Council’s Annual and Long Term Plans

5.12.6 To have an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor and budget provision within the Long Term Plan.

Process initiation

5.13    Attached are the following:

5.13.1 A list of properties in the three wards that are no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased.

5.13.2 A plan of the ward showing the property locations.

5.13.3 A brief status report, street view and aerial photo of each property.

5.13.4 A list of all the properties across the city grouped in terms of Board/Ward areas.

5.14    The next step is for the Board to consider how it approaches the process of considering alternative future public uses. This may involve:

5.14.1 Whether the properties can/should be prioritised for early decisions.

5.14.2 Whether early decisions can be made e.g. retention for a particular use or purpose, or to declare some surplus for disposal because it is obvious there are no practical alternative options.

5.14.3 Develop a programme and process with the Community Governance Team to canvass the community’s needs and develop options over the next six months.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Process Flow Chart

49

b

Property List Hornby Ward

50

c

Property List Halswell Ward

63

d

Property List Riccarton Ward

69

e

Property List - All Wards

73

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property and Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

11.    Riccarton Bus Exchange - Bylaw to Address Loitering Issues

Reference:

17/582333

Contact:

Helen Beaumont

helen.beaumont@ccc.govt.nz

941 8812

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report has been prepared in response to the Board’s resolution of 9 May 2017:

To request that staff investigate and provide feedback to the Board on the process and expected impacts of implementing an anti-loitering bylaw, or any other legal mechanism, in and around the Riccarton Bus Exchange. (Community Board Resolved HHRB/2017/00136)

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Receive the information.

 

 

3.   Introduction

3.1       There is an established history of anti-social behaviour by individuals in and round the Riccarton Bus Exchange, which is well documented, and with which the Board is familiar.

3.2       On 28 March 2017, local Police informally met with the Board to discuss the ongoing issues, and suggested that an anti-loitering bylaw could provide a useful tool to help address antisocial behaviour. 

3.3       The Board then received a deputation on 9 May 2017 (from a local property owner) who addressed the Board regarding youth-related issues in Central Riccarton.  This resulted in the resolution set out above being passed by the Community Board. 

3.4       Several newspaper articles followed, including the opinion piece ‘Police call for loitering bylaw’ (Star Kiwi, 11 April 2017).  However, following a meeting with Council staff, the Police gained a greater understanding of the difficulties and weaknesses of antisocial behaviour bylaws, and the articles took a new tone: ‘Police say bylaw not workable’ (The Star, 25 May 2017) and ‘Police do U-turn over bylaw’ (Western News, 30 May 2017).

3.5       At the 9 May 2017 meeting, the Board also resolved to establish a working party to explore non-regulatory options and to report back to the Board in late July 2017.

3.6       Council staff have prepared the attached information about a bylaw to address loitering, and possible other regulatory options to address antisocial issues. 

3.7       In summary:

·    a new bylaw is not the most appropriate option to address the issues, would not offer any significant advantages over using existing enforcement tools, and would present risks and costs to the Council.

·    issuing trespass notices in public places is possible, but should only be used in sufficiently serious circumstances, and may just move the problem to a nearby area; and

·    non-regulatory options (combined with Police enforcement under existing statute) may be more likely to prevent antisocial behaviour and have not yet been fully explored.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In summary, a bylaw to address loitering:

·    Could technically be made under the Local Government Act (there are relevant bylaw-making powers) but may not pass the analysis requirements in the Act (section 155).

The section 155 analysis requirement is to assess whether a bylaw is ‘the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem’.  Existing legislation largely covers the identified issues, and non-regulatory tools (not yet fully explored), may also provide more appropriate ways to address the problem.

·    Likely raises New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications, and case law suggests the Council could potentially be exposed to legal challenge as a result. The Local Government Act specifically requires an assessment of Bill of Rights implications.

·    Will not enable the Police to issue tickets, as instant fines (also known as infringement notices) cannot be issued for breaches of bylaws made under the Local Government Act.

·    Would give the Police another tool to address the problems, but would not be dissimilar to the tools they already have.

·    Would involve costs to the Council/ratepayers, with arguably limited benefits.

·    Provides no clear advantages over using existing legislation.

4.2       In terms of other legislation (Trespass Act 1980):

·    There is potential to use the Trespass Act to trespass a person known to be causing problems in public places (in sufficiently serious circumstances).

·    There are particular considerations when trespassing people from public places (as opposed to private land), which means there are some restrictions on when this should be applied.

·    Any breach of a trespass notice would result in needing to take a prosecution in the District Court, and in the case of minors, before the Youth Court.

·    Issuing trespass notices may just move the problem to a nearby area.

4.3       In terms of the advantages and disadvantages of using legislative tools, it should be noted that:

·    the Police suggested that a bylaw might give them another tool to help manage anti-social behaviour, and because the legal tools they currently have can be resource-intensive; however,

·    taking enforcement action under a bylaw, under the Summary Offences Act, or under the Trespass Act all involve a similar, relatively resource-intensive process – that is, gathering evidence and taking a prosecution in the District Court, and in the case of minors, before the Youth Court.

 

5.   Background

5.1       Bylaw: process and expected impacts

Bylaw-making power

There are general bylaw-making powers of the Local Government Act 2002 that are relevant.  These are to: address nuisance behaviour, protect health and safety, and reduce the potential for offensive behaviour in public places (section 145).

Bylaw-making assessment - most appropriate tool

The Local Government Act requires an assessment of whether a bylaw is ‘the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem’ (section 155).

This involves identifying the problem (or problems) and looking at whether other approaches might address them. Other approaches may include looking at other legislation, non-regulatory options, and/or working with other organisations.

Problem identification

There is a question as to whether ‘loitering’ is the problem, or whether the associated antisocial behaviours are the problem (obstruction, intimidation, disorderly behaviour, assault, theft, vandalism, etc).

Other legislation

Examination of the issues around the Riccarton Bus Lounge and Division Street shows that the range of issues are already addressed by existing legislation - notably, the Summary Offences Act 1981, but also the Crimes Act 1961, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, and the Littering Act 1979, as well as a Road User Rule restricting loitering on the roadway which allows Police to issue an instant fine.

Why a bylaw, rather than existing legislation?

In discussing the issues with Police, they advised that the Summary Offences Act can be difficult to use (even though it covers many of the identified issues), because of the resources it requires in terms of gathering evidence, and then taking a prosecution.  A new bylaw would not resolve this issue. 

Enforcement of a bylaw

As the Local Government Act does not allow infringement notices to be issued for breaching a bylaw, no instant fines could be issued.  Instead, a prosecution for breaching a bylaw would need to be brought before the District Court, and in the case of minors, before the Youth Court.

Advantage / disadvantage of a bylaw over using existing legislation

The same process would need to be followed to take a prosecution under a bylaw as under the Summary Offences Act or other existing legislation.

Most appropriate tool?

There are no clear advantages of using a bylaw as a tool to control anti-social behaviour, compared to using existing legislation.  There are, however, clear disadvantages to a bylaw (in terms of costs to the Council, potential effectiveness, and potential challenges).

Bylaw-making assessment - Bill of Rights Act  

The Local Government Act requires an assessment of whether a bylaw ‘gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990’, and states a bylaw cannot be inconsistent with that Act (section 155).

Rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of expression are protected by this legislation.

Bill of Rights implications

Regulating the movement of people or their access to public places gives rise to implications under the Bill of Rights Act. 

A legal analysis of the rights, the limitations and the likely impacts would need to be undertaken if a bylaw were to be developed.

Where a bylaw potentially unjustifiably limits freedoms, it may be open to challenge through the High Court.

Other bylaw tests: repugnancy

A bylaw addressing loitering may be repugnant to the laws of New Zealand.

Parliament has addressed some ‘types’ of loitering already in legislation therefore ‘other’ forms of loitering are not intended to be regulated (problem identification is also relevant here – it is not the loitering per se that is the issue, but other associated anti-social activities).

 

5.2       Trespass Act: process and expected impacts

Trespass Act 1980

Trespass notices can be issued to trespass people from places.

Current use

Commonly used to trespass people from private property.

Potential use

Could be used to trespass people from public places e.g. Division Street.

Special considerations

Issuing a trespass notice for a public place, and particularly a road, has a different set of legal considerations to trespassing a person from private land.

Risks

Trespass notices should only be issued in respect of public places where such action is reasonable (i.e. the circumstances are sufficiently serious), or the notice may be open to legal challenge.

Enforcement

If a person breaches a trespass notice (by occupying the land they have been trespassed from), they can be prosecuted.

Enforcement process

Evidence would need to be gathered, and then a prosecution could be taken before the District Court, and in the case of minors, before the Youth Court.

Negatives

Taking enforcement action can be resource intensive (costly).

Issuing trespass notices for one street may simply move the activity elsewhere.

 

6.   Conclusions

6.1       A new bylaw to regulate loitering/anti-social behaviour would not meet the tests of the Local Government Act. 

6.2       Issuing trespass notices under the Trespass Act may be an appropriate tool in some circumstances, but must be used with caution when applied to public places such as a road. 

6.3       The Summary Offences Act and other legislation can continue to be used by the New Zealand Police to address some behaviours/issues.

6.4       All of these legislative/regulatory approaches end with the same resource-intensive result: a prosecution (by the Police) in the District Court or the Youth Court.  This process is the same whether a prosecution is taken based on an offence in existing legislation, under a theoretical new bylaw, or due to a breach of a trespass notice.

6.5       The Police initially sought regulatory assistance from the Council, believing a new bylaw would help them to address antisocial behaviour around Westfield Mall and the Riccarton Bus Exchange.  However, the Police now have a greater understanding of the difficulties and weaknesses of antisocial behaviour bylaws and understand a bylaw would not provide them with a useful tool in this instance.    

6.6       One reason the Police initially gave for wanting a new bylaw was because the legal tools they currently have for addressing antisocial behaviour can be resource-intensive.  However, a new bylaw would involve similar costs for the Police – that is, gathering evidence and taking a prosecution through a Court process. A bylaw would not be dissimilar to the tools they already have, and has no clear advantages in this regard.

6.7       Non-regulatory options can also be resource-intensive, but can work to prevent issues, and potentially have better long-term impacts/effects.

6.8       The working party established by the Board is tasked with exploring non-regulatory options, including: CCTV, graffiti removal, street cleaning, lighting, addressing hidden gathering points, lounge safety improvements, and the presence and impact of Police, security arrangements, and staff and volunteers.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Bylaw Analysis Process Diagram

82

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Teena Crocker - Senior Policy Analyst

Judith Cheyne - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

12.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund 2016-17 - Applications - Thomas Mackintosh and ChrisJohn Dequita

Reference:

17/644442

Contact:

Marie Byrne

Marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider two applications received for funding from the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $1,158 remaining in the fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Board to consider applications for funding from Thomas Mackintosh and ChrisJohn Dequita.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision 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 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve the making of a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Thomas Mackintosh towards competing at the World Under 23 Rowing Championships in Bulgaria, from 19 to 23 July 2017.

2.         Approve the making of a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to ChrisJohn Dequita towards participation in the Mainland Under 17 Basketball tournament in Westport, from 8 to 10 July 2017.

 

4.   Applicant  – Thomas Mackintosh

4.1       Thomas (Tom) Mackintosh is a 20 year old University of Canterbury student living in Upper Riccarton.  Tom is competing at the World Under 23 Rowing Championships being held in Plovdiv, Bulgaria, from 19 July 2017 to 23 July 2017.

4.2       Tom will be part of the men's heavyweight 8+ team in this year's World Championships after securing a bronze medal in the Under 19 World Championships in 2014. He has been involved in rowing for six years, medalling at secondary school, national and international levels. He has an impressive array of achievements in the sport including being part of the New Zealand Under 21 rowing team in 2016, which was unbeaten internationally.

4.3       Tom has managed to juggle full time study alongside a demanding 14 weekly high performance training sessions and jobs.  He is completing his second year of a Bachelor of Commerce degree as well as starting up his own business based in Christchurch.

4.4       Participation as part of this Under 23 team is seen as a stepping stone for Tom towards his goal of representing New Zealand at the Tokyo Olympics. 

4.5       Tom has a strong passion for entrepreneurship and is currently building a 15 foot wooden ski boat with his father.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Tom:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Lake Karapiro training costs

$150

International flights

$2,660

Transfers and travel insurance

$182

Accommodation

$3,168

Team uniform

$1,034

Boat transport

$591

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$7,785

Amount sought from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

$500

 

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

5.   Applicant  – ChrisJohn (Rylu) Dequita

5.1       ChrisJohn (Rylu) Dequita is a 16 year old from Hornby High School, living in Hornby.  He has been recently selected to represent Canterbury at the Under 17's Mainland Basketball tournament from 8 to 10 July 2017 in Westport. 

5.2       This is the first time that Rylu has represented Canterbury in basketball but has been in the development squad for one year and a keen competitor in the Hornby High Basketball team. 

5.3       Rylu who is in Year 12, is also the student representative on the Hornby High School Board of Trustees. 

5.4       Rylu believes this trip will increase his life skills and be able to bring back basketball skills to the High School side. 

5.5       In the short time available for fundraising, Rylu is able to contribute $150 towards this trip.  He is also seeking some funds from the Hornby Rotary Club.

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

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Accommodation/food/transport in Westport

$500

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$500

Amount sought from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

$350

 

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

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

   


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

13.  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.

 

 

 


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

14.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

27 June 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

15

Public Excluded Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Minutes - 13 June 2017

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.