Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 14 June 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

9 June 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@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/

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 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.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 4

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

C       6.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13  

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Response to petition for School Speed Zones............................................................ 17

C       8.       404 Tuam Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction......................... 21

C       9.       284 Kilmore Street - Proposed Loading Zone............................................................. 29

C       10.     340 Selwyn Street - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction.............................. 37

C       11.     Inglis Street Phillipstown - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction................... 45

C       12.     Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund for Manahi Wawatai,Devante Wawatai and Ethan Te Pune......................................................... 53

C       13.     Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Shoreline Youth Trust - Shoreline Leadership Development ................................... 57

C       14.     Application to Discretionary Response Fund from Woolston Development Project 61

C       15.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................... 65

B       16.     Elected Members Information Exchange..................................................................... 72 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 29 May 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Deputations by Appointment

4.1

Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated

Hayley Strachan will speak on behalf of Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated regarding their use of a Discretionary Response Fund grant towards emergency preparedness.

 

4.2

Englefield Residents Group

Irinka Britnell will speak on behalf of Englefield Residents Group regarding the work and needs of the Englefield Neighbourhood.

 

4.3

Roimata Community Food Hub

Michael Reynolds will speak about Roimata Community Food Hub.

 

4.4

Naval Point Boat Safety Association

James Ensor and Roger Allen of the Naval Point Boat Security and Safety Association will update the Board on progress on the proposed safety improvements for recreational boat users of Naval Point, Lyttelton.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 29 May 2017

Time:                                    3:01pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

30 May 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

Shupayi.Mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

There were no apologies.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Sara Templeton declared an interest in Item 10 - Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Fund - Heathcote Valley Community Centre - Material Costs. Sara Templeton elected to remain in the meeting during the discussion and abstained from voting.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00044

Community Board Decision

That the open minutes and public excluded minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 17 May 2017 be confirmed subject to the following amendment to the open minutes:

An additional item be added to Clause 15 - Elected Members Information Exchange

15.6    Randolph Street, Woolston – Members were advised of the issue of incomplete planting and parking on the berm at the end of Rudolph Street by the footbridge leading into Linwood Park.

15.7    Redcliffs Park Land Transactions – Board members indicated that they would like the Council to be advised that the Board would like to have two representatives on the Hearing Panel to be set up.

Tim Lindley/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                                Carried

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

 

4.1       Moa Kids Community Early Learning Centre Incorporated

The scheduled deputation did not attend.

 

 

4.2       Ōtautahi  Creative Spaces

Kim Morton spoke on behalf of Ōtautahi Creative Spaces regarding recent developments with their programme and activities.

The Chairperson thanked Kim Morton for her deputation.

 

4.3       Phillipstown Community Hub

John Wooles, Chairperson, and Viviana Zanetti, Phillipstown Hub Co-ordinator spoke regarding the work of the Phillipstown Community Hub.

Following questions from Board Members, the Chairperson thanked John Wooles and Viviana Zanetti for their deputation.

 

 

4.4       Food Resilience Network and the Ōtākaro Orchard

Peter Morgan spoke to the Board on behalf of Food Resilience Network and the Ōtākaro Orchard on the planning process to have a city food resilience network.  Tony Moore, the Council’s Principal Adviser Sustainability was present to speak to Council’s support of the Food Resilience Network.

The Board were invited to sign the Edible Canterbury Charter.

Following questions from Board Members, the Chairperson thanked Peter Morgan for his deputation.

 

The Board requested that further information be provided on the Edible Canterbury Charter, the ability for the Board to sign the Charter, and how to implement the Food Resilience Network in the Community Board Area.

 

 

4.5       Radley Street Traffic Speed

Ruth Dyson, Member of Parliament for Port Hills, and some residents of Radley Street spoke to the Board regarding the speed of traffic using Radley Street.

The Chairperson thanked Ruth Dyson and the residents for their deputation.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00045

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Request staff to investigate and report to the Board options for traffic calming measures to alleviate traffic speed on Radley Street from Ferry Road to Garlands Road including improved signage, and a pedestrian refuge island around the Sheldon Street intersection.

Deon Swiggs/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

4.6       Linwood Village

Michael Britnell and Irinka Britnell spoke on behalf of Linwood Village Businesses regarding business and traffic issues within and affecting the historic Linwood Village.

Following questions from Board Members, the Chairperson thanked Mr and Mrs Britnell for their deputation.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

During the Linwood Village deputation Mr and Mrs Britnell presented a petition regarding the Worcester Street intersection with Fitzgerald Avenue.

The Prayer of the 39 signatory petition reads:

The businesses and community of Linwood Village and Worcester Street environ, request that, the intersection of Worcester Street at Fitzgerald Avenue remain open to vehicular traffic in all four directions to ensure the revival and survival of this essential and historic shopping and community precinct.

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00046

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Refer the petition to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for their consideration.

Deon Swiggs/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                                  Carried

 

6.   Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00047 (Staff recommendation accepted without change.)

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Correspondence Report dated 29 May 2017.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

7.   Standing Orders

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

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

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

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

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00048

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

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

3.         Resolves that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Chairperson will not have a casting vote.

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

Darrell Latham/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                               Carried

Note:           Sara Templeton and Alexandra Davids wished their vote against resolution number three relating to the Chairpersons Casting Vote be recorded.

 

 

8.   Code of Conduct

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00049 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information in the report.

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

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

9.   214 Woodham Road - Proposed P10 Parking Restriction

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00050 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 10 minutes at any time on the north side of Woodham Road commencing at a point 22 metres west of its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a western direction for 12 metres.

Alexandra Davids/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

10. Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Fund - Heathcote Valley Community Centre - Material Costs

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve a grant of $5,786 to Heathcote Valley Community Association towards Heathcote Valley Community Centre set-up costs.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00051

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Lay the report on the table until the Board has received further information in relation to funding of set up costs for rebuilt community facilities from the Community Facilities Rebuild Team.

Jake McLellan/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                Carried

Note: Alexandra Davids and Sally Buck requested their vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

 

11. Application for Youth Development Fund - Isaac Zarifeh

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00052 (Original Staff Recommendation Accepted without Change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Isaac Riyad Zarifeh towards competing at the Henley Royal Regatta in the United Kingdom in June/July 2017.

Sara Templeton/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                Carried

 

 

 

12. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Board Consideration

The Board noted that the Board’s request to engage all Community Boards in formulating the criteria of the Community Resilience Partnership Fund will be included in the Board’s Report to the Council’s 8 June 2017 meeting.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Nominate two Board members; one to act as Master of Ceremony and one to give a speech, for the Board’s Community Service Awards.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00053

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Nominate Sally Buck, Master of Ceremony and Darrell Latham, to speak on behalf of the Board , for the Board’s 2017 Community Service Awards. The Board note that the two positions are to be rotated during the current Board’s term.

Sara Templeton/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                            Carried

 

The meeting adjourned at 5.28pm and reconvened at 5.28pm.

 

12.1 Redcliffs School Land Transaction Hearings Panel

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00054

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.      Nominate Tim Lindley and Darrell Latham to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representatives on the Redcliffs Park Land Transfer Hearing Panel.

Sara Templeton/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                             Carried

 

12.2 External Interagency Sex Workers Working Party

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00055

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.      Nominate Alexandra Davids as the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representative on the External Interagency Sex Workers Working Party.

Sara Templeton/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

12.3 Local Government New Zealand Community Board Conference

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00056

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.      Agree for Sally Buck to attend the Local Government New Zealand Conference in Auckland on 23 and 25 July 2017, subject to funding.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

Note: Sally Buck abstained from voting on the matter.

 

13. Elected Members Information Exchange

Part B

The Board received and noted the following information from Board Members:

15.1    Park Rangers Availability – The Board were advised that some groups are realising that Park Rangers seem to be not as responsive as the team used to be to requests.  The Board agreed that the Parks Rangers team are to be commended with their co-ordination of volunteers and groups.  The Board noted that the team is carrying vacancies and this maybe having an impact on the community.

15.2    Environment Canterbury (ECAN) – The Board advised on additional topics to be discussed with ECAN at their upcoming meeting including stockpiling of tyres on properties, and specific information on dust in Woolston.

15.4    Randolph Street – Parking Compliance Officers have been monitoring the parking issues at Randolph Street regularly.

15.5    Port Hills Road Tyre Stock Pile – There is a stock pile of tyres on Port Hills that will have to be removed.

14. Questions Under Standing Orders

Part B

There were no questions under Standing Orders at this meeting.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 14th DAY OF JUNE 2017.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

6.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/581415

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Elizabeth Graham

Noise in Linwood Library on 18 May 2017

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 14 June 2017

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence - Elizabeth Graham Noise in Linwood Library May 2017

14

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

7.        Response to petition for School Speed Zones

Reference:

17/562716

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report provides a response to a resolution of the Council on 9th March 2017 which stated that The Council receive the petition and request staff to provide a report to the Community Board with regard to establishing school speed zones with flashing 40km/hr signs outside St Anne’s, Te Waka Unua and Linwood Avenue Schools .

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board receive the information in this report.

 

 

3.   Key Points

Overall selection of sites

3.1       Council has made funding available for School Speed Zones to be installed outside approximately three schools each financial year, on a needs basis according to a Council approved prioritisation process.

3.2       The highest priority sites for School Speed Zones for the 2017/18 financial year are:

·     Cashmere High School on Cashmere Road – Spreydon-Cashmere Board

·     Christchurch South Intermediate on Selwyn Street – Spreydon-Cashmere Board

·     Catholic Cathedral College on Ferry Road  - Linwood Central Heathcote Board

·     Paparoa Street School on Tomes Road – Papanui-Innes Board

1.2       Staff have initiated planning for the implementation of these School Speed Zones.   

3.3       A prioritisation system is required because there are more eligible candidate sites than available funding in any one year.  Schools that meet the criteria are prioritised according to:

·     Vehicle operating speeds (free flowing speed of vehicles at the school’s crossing during morning and afternoon peak periods),

·     Road status (local, collector, arterial),

·     Vehicle volume (determining gap selection for school patrol)

·     Road environment (approach visibility, distractions, traffic generated by nearby land use other than school)

·     Kerbside activity (potential for drivers to be distracted),

·     Number of heavy vehicles (which can intimidate children),

·     Number of cyclists (child cyclists can make sudden, unexpected manoeuvres),

·     Level of community interest (the concerns of the community),

·     Presence of a school patrol (whether or not a patrol operates to assist children to cross the road safely).

3.4       It is Council policy not to install School Speed Zones where a signalised crossing is provided or proposed.  It is the view of staff that signalised crossings provide the ultimate level of safety for children through bringing traffic to a stop to allow the road to be crossed safely.  Therefore it is considered unnecessary for a signalised crossing to be supplemented with a School Speed Zone, which could have been more effectively employed elsewhere.

3.5       The schools identified on the petition are not on the current programme. The reasons for each school are described as follows:

St Anne’s School

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

3.7       As a result of the consultation responses the project is currently on hold.  Staff may reconsider Ferry Road at St Anne’s school as a school safety initiative depending on the outcomes of the Woolston Village project. 

Te Waka Unua School

3.8       There is a proposal under consideration at present relating to the upgrade of Ferry Road at Woolston Park that would be scoped to treat the frontage of Te Waka Unua. This project is currently in investigation and scheme design phase, with the formal consultation scheduled for February 2018 and construction in the following year. The preferred treatment for the Ferry Road frontage at Te Waka Unua School is a signalised pedestrian crossing.

3.9       Staff have already discussed with the School Principal the preference to remove the existing zebra crossing outside the school and install a signalled pedestrian crossing between the existing crossing and the historic substation.

3.10    The reason a signalised pedestrian crossing is a preferred treatment is that the volume of traffic on Ferry Road makes it very difficult for children to operate the existing school patrol because of the lack of gaps in traffic.

3.11    The installation of a School Speed Zone at Te Waka Unua is not likely to be effective because speeds are already restricted by congestion and it would also not improve the ability to operate the school patrol. Unless funded as a special project, a School Speed Zone in this location would defer the installation of a School Speed Zone at one of the priority sites listed above.

3.12    If Council were to fund an improvement to the Ferry Road frontage of Te Waka Unua School as a priority standalone project, then staff would seek that a funding allowance for a signalised crossing is made.

Linwood Avenue School

3.13    Linwood Avenue School is located close to a mid-block signalised crossing on Linwood Avenue. Staff consider that the ability of school children to safety stop traffic by the use of signals to cross Linwood Avenue provides the highest level of safety available from any of the infrastructure type treatments that Council may implement.

3.14    Therefore, it is the view of staff that a School Speed Zone in this location would not only be unnecessary, it would unjustly defer the provision of a School Speed Zone elsewhere in the City where there is a greater need.

3.15    As part of the Major Cycle Route scheme for Linwood Avenue, the existing signalised crossing will undergo a significant upgrade to assist cyclists as well as pedestrians. Construction of stage one of the project has already begun and the section near Linwood Primary School will be fully completed by July 2018.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

8.        404 Tuam Street, Phillipstown - Proposed P30 Parking Restriction

Reference:

17/523137

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a P30 parking restriction along on the south side of Tuam Street between Livingstone Street and Clothier Street in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated at 404 Tuam Street.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes at any time on the south side of Tuam Street Road commencing at a point 25 metres east of its intersection with Livingstone Street and extending in an eastern direction for 6 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

o      Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

o      Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P30 parking restrictions (preferred option)

o      Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides improved conditions for loading and deliveries.

·   Provides a higher turnover of parking occupancy to improve customer access to the business at 404 Tuam Street and adjacent businesses within a convenient walking distance.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Has a risk of being occupied by customers for up to 30 minutes and still blocking loading activity.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The business owner at 404 Tuam Street contacted the city council to report difficulties for delivery and customer access to their business. The owner indicated that the nature of their business depends significantly on medium size goods vehicles and fork lift truck operations on that side of the road.

5.2       There are parking bays on both sides of Tuam Street which are predominantly derestricted. An existing P5 loading zone is provided on the opposite side which is frequently used, especially by courier deliveries of parcels and small goods. This location however, is unsuitable for the business at 404 Tuam Street since it is necessary that heavy goods must be forklifted or carried throughout the day and it is considered unsafe and highly inefficient to cross Tuam Street in these situations.

5.3       There is a P5 bay located 60m further east of the property on the south side though this is also utilised for most of the working day and if available would require heavy goods to be transported along the footpath over that length, which would result in hazards to adjacent businesses and members of the public.

5.4       Upon investigation, council staff concur that the unrestricted parking spaces on Tuam Street are consistently occupied throughout the day and agree with the difficulties described by the business owner.

5.5       The installation of the P30 restrictions will increase parking turnover to assist customer access and deliveries at 404 Tuam Street as well as adjacent businesses who also attract visitors and customers.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P30 restriction on the south side of Tuam Street in accordance with Attachment A. This option provides the equivalent of approximately one vehicle length. 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to business owners and tenants between 400-414 on the south side and 369-379 on the north side. This consultation was based on a P5 restriction.

6.5       No written responses were received though staff spoke directly with the businesses immediately adjacent.   They agreed with the proposal to restrict all day parking, though were of the opinion that the proposed P5 was too restrictive for customers, who already experience considerable difficulties locating a space.

6.6       A preference for a P30 restriction was considered by the adjacent businesses as a preferred amendment.  The applicant at 404 stated a willingness to accept a P30 restriction as a compromise.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $200 to install signs and road markings.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.12    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.13    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides improved conditions for loading and deliveries for businesses in this location.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Installation cost

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the local business request for P30 parking to support local business activity and increase parking turnover.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the customer and delivery demands of the adjacent business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

404 Tuam Street P30 site plan

26

b

404 Tuam Street P30 location plan

27

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

9.        284 Kilmore Street - Proposed Loading Zone

Reference:

17/523898

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of a P5 Loading Zone along part of the south side of Kilmore Street between Bangor Street and Fitzgerald Street in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from Pomeroy’s bar and restaurant situated at 284 Kilmore Street.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke the existing P120 parking restriction on the south side of Kilmore Street, commencing at a point 48 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum of five minutes, for goods vehicles only on south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 48 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an eastern direction for 11  metres.

3.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum of 120 minutes on south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 59 metres east of its intersection with Bangor Street and extending in an eastern direction for 16  metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P5 Loading Zone restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking space to improve conditions for loading and deliveries.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The business owner at Pomeroy’s Bar and Restaurant at 284 Kilmore Street contacted the city council to report difficulties for deliveries to their business.  This is caused by parked vehicles immediately outside their premises which, whilst legitimately parked, block deliveries and service activity to the bar and restaurant.

5.2       The building has multiple businesses operating on the site including a café business (known as Little Poms) which has off street parking; however, the daily deliveries for the separate pub and restaurant kitchen require access through the Kilmore Street frontage, warranting the loading space as proposed, to facilitate safe and efficient operation.

5.3       There are currently parking bays on both sides of Kilmore Street; P120 restrictions are in effect on the south side along the pub frontage (the equivalent of five standard vehicle spaces) and unrestricted parking on the north side.  The proposal would affect the equivalent of two vehicle spaces, resulting in a reduction of five to three P120 spaces on that parking section.

5.4       Upon investigation, council staff concur that the P120 parking spaces on Kilmore Street are consistently occupied throughout the day and agree with the difficulties described by the business owner.  Site observations indicate that there are several alternative parking opportunities on Kilmore Street, which are located within a few minutes walking distance.

5.5       The installation of the P5 Loading Bay restrictions will remove inappropriate parking and assist loading and deliveries at 284 Kilmore Street.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P5 Loading Zone restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P5 Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles only) restriction on the south side of Kilmore Street in accordance with Attachment A. This option provides approximately two standard lengths if required.

6.2       A two space bay was requested since the applicant has indicated that there can sometimes be multiple deliveries at once, as well as larger deliveries needing the use of sack barrows or electric ramps to the rear.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       Staff consulted business owners and tenants between nos 270 and 287 Kilmore Street.  Originally the consultation plan showed a loading zone east of the preferred option, since staff considered it more appropriate to assist large vehicle manoeuvring into the bay on approach.

6.6       No written responses were received in objection; an email of support was received by the applicant. The email of support requested an amendment to the location of the loading zone marginally to the west, and this has been incorporated into the preferred option as given by Attachment A.

6.7       Since the amended proposal only affects the business that requested the change, staff have not sought further community views for the modified layout.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies

6.9       There is a draft proposal on Kilmore Street under An Accessible City which affects this section of Kilmore Street. Design is currently underway and consultation has yet to take place. The proposed layout will include two spaces of loading zone at a different position, approximately 15 metres further west, which will be the nearest feasible location.

6.10    Consequently on the expectation that the AAC project will be completed, this proposal will be temporary until its completion which is presently forecasted to be 2019 at the earliest.

6.11    Staff have made the applicant aware of the AAC proposal and the likely implications. They have confirmed that they would still require the immediate proposal and that a similar facility a short distance further west will be an acceptable relocation in due course.

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation - $200 to install signs and road markings.

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and the effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.14    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.16    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.17    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.18    Not applicable

Implementation

6.19    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.20    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides a higher turnover of occupancy to improve access for loading and deliveries to the business at 284 Kilmore Street.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the local business request for a P5 loading zone to support local business activity and increase parking turnover.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the customer and delivery demands of the adjacent business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

284 Kilmore Street P5 site plan

34

b

284 Kilmore Street P5 location plan

35

 

 

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

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

10.    340 Selwyn Street - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction

Reference:

17/481759

Contact:

Barry Hayes

Barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping (at any time) parking restrictions along part of the east side of Selwyn Street between Brougham Street and Ruskin Street in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in connection with investigations preceding the Selwyn Street (Moorhouse Avenue to Brougham Street) renewal project. This scheme would improve amenity, safety and network efficiency on this route, however the project would not begin until at least 2019/20.

1.4       These measures have been requested as an interim measure to address observed chronic traffic congestion that results in severe delays and negative environmental effects.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke the existing No Stopping Restriction on the east side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for 37 metres.

2.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the east side of Selwyn Street commencing at its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for 81 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves road capacity on Selwyn Street southbound

·     Reduces delays to bus services and improves reliability

·     Improves safety for cyclists travelling south

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       This section of Selwyn Street is an important route for private vehicles and bus services and is a critical transport link between Christchurch CBD and state highway 76, as well as the various suburbs of south west Christchurch.

5.2       This street is a busy route for most of the day and week, though staff have observed that in particular the weekday evening peak is severely congested. It is not uncommon for southbound traffic to be queued up for the whole 800m section between Brougham Street and Moorhouse Avenue.  This in turn stops drivers from turning left and right off Moorhouse Avenue, and the resulting queues block through traffic on Moorhouse Avenue. Selwyn Street is a commuter route and is predominantly used for drivers requiring to travel for the whole of this road section.

5.3       On the southbound approach to Brougham Street, there are 3 marked lanes for approximately 5 car lengths. Site observations have shown that on-street parking takes place on the east side close to the intersection.  The effects of the parked vehicles (2 on average) results in single lane operation on this approach for most of the peak period.

5.4       Whilst the approach lights turn green the approach is often blocked by the stationary right turn queue which extends well beyond the designated lane. Parked vehicles stop through traffic from undertaking this queue of right turners and this is the primary cause of congestion on Selwyn Street.

5.5       Furthermore, a southbound bus stop is located 10 metres north of the proposed restriction.  The parked vehicles and traffic queueing presents difficulties for bus services to re-join the traffic stream, causing disruption to bus scheduling,

5.6       The installation of the No Stopping restrictions will ensure that the road capacity of Selwyn Street will improve the efficiency of the throughput of the traffic lanes and reduce southbound traffic delays and queue lengths to more acceptable levels, as well as the reliability of bus services.

5.7       The removal of parked vehicles will also assist people cycling who must currently take particular risks manoeuvring around them, which can be especially hazardous during times of high congestion.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install No stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install no Stopping Restrictions in accordance with Attachment A. These restrictions would be in effect at all times.

6.2       This option completes the gap between identical restrictions already in effect.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to 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       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to property owners and tenants at 319- 350 Selwyn Street. It was noted that these properties have off-street parking space. No responses were received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.7       Within the (Accessible City) Central City road use hierarchy, Selwyn Street is shown to be a prioritised route for Public Transport and therefore the elimination of delays to services would be an important consideration to achieve this.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $200 to install road markings.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.12    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.13    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the efficiency of the approach to the traffic signals at Brougham Street, resulting in reduced queuing and delays to private vehicles on Selwyn Street as well as Moorhouse Avenue.

·   Improves safety for cyclists who have to manoeuvre within a very tight area between parked vehicles and congested traffic lanes.

·   Assists bus services in terms of service reliability and manoeuvring downstream of the bus stop located close to the proposed restriction.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       No responses have been received that express a preference.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not contribute to the improvement of the efficiency and safety of the transport network.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Site plan 340 Selwyn Street NSR

42

b

Location plan 340 Selwyn Street NSR

43

 

 

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

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

11.    Inglis Street Phillipstown - Proposed No Stopping Parking Restriction

Reference:

17/565678

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of No Stopping (at any time) parking restrictions along part of the north side of Inglis Street between Mathesons Road and Ollivers Road in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident, who was concerned about inappropriate parking resulting in road safety risks.

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 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the No Stopping Restriction on the north side of Inglis Street commencing at a point 63m east of its intersection with Matthesons Road and extending in an easterly direction for 30 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves safety for drivers travelling in both directions on Inglis Street.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       This street is residential in nature with properties on both sides for the whole of its length. Previously a kerb buildout was installed by the council on the north side approximately half way along its length. At this section of the street, the road width kerb to kerb is only 6m, which is the equivalent to two cars side by side.

5.2       Whilst each property has parking available off-street, sporadic parking takes place on both sides of the street.

5.3       A resident of Inglis Street raised a concern that some residents or their visitors were parking on street, adjacent to the kerb buildout. This resulted in a reduced street width at that location and a consequent one-way operation on a ‘give and take’ basis.

5.4       This was reported to lead to problems for residential traffic, since the road is intended for two way operation and that larger vehicles such as waste trucks and emergency vehicles would have particular difficulty, potentially leading to damage to vehicles or roadside landscaping.

5.5       Upon investigation, based on site observations and measurement of road widths, council staff concur that the reported problem takes place and that the concerns are justified.

5.6       It is considered by staff that no stopping restrictions should have been implemented at the time of the buildout construction and that they are warranted to ensure safe two way operation is maintained at all times.

5.7      

6.   Option 1 – Install No stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install no Stopping Restrictions in accordance with Attachment A. These restrictions would be in effect at all times.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to property owners and tenants at 7-18 Inglis Street.

6.5       One response was received from an affected resident. He expressed support for the proposal though requested a minor reduction of the extent by one metre.

6.6       The effectiveness of the proposal would not be adversely affected by this requested amendment and has therefore been adjusted to take this into account.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $200 to install road markings and signage.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

6.12    The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The list of delegations for the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.13    The installations of any sign and/or road markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Linwood-Central-Heathcote board approval.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – approximately 3-4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the safety for two way vehicles travelling along Inglis Street.

·   Ensures that sufficient width is consistently available for emergency vehicles and other large vehicles such as waste trucks.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       Is inconsistent with the community request for safety to be improved. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not contribute to the improvement of the efficiency and safety of the transport network.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Inglis Street NSR site plan

50

b

Inglis Street NSR location plan

51

 

 

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

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

12.    Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund for Manahi Wawatai,Devante Wawatai and Ethan Te Pune

Reference:

17/524143

Contact:

Bruce Coleman

Bruce.Coleman@ccc.govt.nz

941 6604

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board to consider three applications received for the Board's 2016/17 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $5,600 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Manahi Wawatai, Devante Wawatai and Ethan Te Pune.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Manahi Wawatai towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

2.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/17 Youth Development Fund to Devante Wawatai towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

3.         Approves a grant of $350 from its 2016/13 Youth Development Fund to Ethan Te Pune towards travel to the Cook Islands to retrace their whakapapa and bring back their knowledge.

 

 

 

4.   Project Information

4.1       Students of other languages at Shirley Boys High School (SBHS) have traditionally gone on overseas trips to countries where the language they are studying is one of the official or indigenous languages.  This will be the first time that students of Te Reo Māori at SBHS have had the opportunity to go overseas and experience a language and culture with many similarities to Māori. It is proposed that year 12 and 13 Te Reo Maori students will go on a bi-annual trip to Rarotonga. 

4.2       The focus of the trip to Rarotonga will be on retracing the migration history of the earliest Maori settlers to Aotearoa and their respective waka.  While in Rarotonga the students will meet with tangata whenua, learn about the migration of the waka, visit significant historic sites and experience the local culture.

4.3       The trip proposal follows the successful experience of students from other parts of New Zealand who have undertaken similar experiences.  For instance the school has drawn on the experience of students from Tauranga who have recently completed a similar experience. A video of their experience is available at: www.maoritelevision.com/news/national/maori-students-travel-rarotonga-retrace-footsteps-their-ancestors

4.4       Many Maori students at SBHS have not grown up with Māori as their primary language and are eager to make Māori culture and language in the school more acceptable, natural and a part of everyday life.  The experiences gained from the trip will contribute to the boys being role models for others at the school wanting to succeed as Māori, and within their communities.

4.5       There are a total of 12 students and two teachers who are planning to go on the trip.  Applications for funding have been spread amongst the three Community Board areas where the students live. Applications have not been accepted for the two teachers  The majority of the students, eight, live in the Coastal-Burwood Community Board area, with one from the Papanui-Innes Community Board area. Assessments for the trip have been carried out by the respective community development advisors. Staff are recommending that each student be funded $350 so that all 12 students get the same level of support from the community boards. 

 

5.   Applicants

5.1       Manahi Wawatai

5.1.1   Manahi is a 16 year old student attending Shirley Boys High School. He is a keen sportsperson who currently plays rugby and basketball and works part-time at Countdown. He is a senior Te Reo Maori student currently studying towards NCEA. 

5.1.2   This is the first time Manahi has travelled outside New Zealand and the first trip for Shirley Boys High School students studying Te Reo Maori. The trip will take place between the 8-14 July during school holidays.

5.1.3   Manahi says: “Travelling to Rarotonga would be a great opportunity to learn the history of our language and early ancestors as the people of Rarotonga hold a wealth of our past knowledge that we have yet to learn.  It would also be a great experience to hear and witness the similarities between our two languages and cultures.”

5.1.4   Manahi has raised $701.90 towards the cost of the trip.  Between now and the leaving date there are a number of fundraising activities planned including a quiz night, hangi, bingo night and school dance which are likely to add to the funds raised for this trip.

5.2       Devante Wawatai

5.2.1   Devante Wawatai is a 15 year old student currently attending Shirley Boys High School. He is a keen sportsperson who plays league and wants to eventually play in the (Australian) National Rugby League competition.

5.2.2   Devante says: “Travelling to Rarotonga would be a mean as experience for me and the boys. It would take our levels of knowledge to a whole new level and expand our world view and our understanding of our Māori culture and heritage.”

5.3       Ethan Te Puni

5.3.1   Ethan is a 16 year old student currently attending Shirley Boys High School. He is keen on science and wants to do medicine at university specialising in forensic medicine. His also plays rugby, plays the guitar and loves gaming.

5.3.2   Ethan has raised $701.90 towards the cost of the trip.  Between now and the leaving date there are a number of further fundraising activities planned including a quiz night, hangi, bingo night and school dance which are likely to add to the funds raised for this trip.

6.   Fundraising and expenses

6.1       Manahi, Devante and Ethan have each raised $701.90 towards the cost of the trip.  Between now and the leaving date there are a number of further collective fundraising activities planned including a quiz night, hangi, bingo night and school dance which are likely to add to the funds raised for the trip.

6.2       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for each student:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Accommodation

$140.00

Transport on the Island

$100.00

Planned activities

$300.00

Travel insurance

$35.00

Food

$100.00

Return airfares

$1080.00

 

 

                                                                                                 Total

$1763.00

 

1.1.  This is the first time all three applicants have 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

Author

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

13.    Application to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Shoreline Youth Trust - Shoreline Leadership Development

Reference:

17/521603

Contact:

Vimbayi Chitaka

Vimbayi.Chitaka@ccc.govt.nz

941 6633

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00056254

Shoreline Youth Trust

Shoreline Leadership Development

$10,000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This staff generated report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Shoreline Youth Trust.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $8,000 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Shoreline Youth Trust towards Shoreline Leadership Development.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$104,363

$62,071

$42,292

$34,292

 

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

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote - 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund - Shoreline Youth Trust - Shoreline Leadership Development - Decision Matrix

59

 

 

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

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

14.    Application to Discretionary Response Fund from Woolston Development Project

Reference:

17/543448

Contact:

Carly Waddleton

Carly.waddleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 5120

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood Central Heathocte Community Board to consider an application for funding from their 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

00056334

Woolston Development Project

Emergency Financial Assistance

$5000

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Woolston Development Project for Emergency Financial Assistance.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $5000 from its 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund to Woolston Development Project towards Emergency Financial Assistance.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2016/17

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$104,363

$62,071

$42,292

$37,292

 

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

4.3       The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LCH Decision Matrix Woolston Development Project

63

 

 

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

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

15.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/257621

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to resource the Community Board to promote a pro-active partnership approach to decision-making between the Council and Community Boards working together to achieve the best outcomes for the city with decisions being made with a good understanding of community views.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Provide comment to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee 29 June 2017 meeting on the Heathcote Expressway.

3.         Agree an option on the future of Neighbourhood Week.

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Community Board Plan update against outcomes

3.1.1   The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has yet to develop its 2017-19 Community Board Plan.  The Board is currently consulting with its communities on what the priorities should be.

3.2       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.2.1   Neighbourhood Week Review - “Summer with your Neighbours” formerly known as Neighbourhood Week is back again for 2017 and will be held from Friday 27 October to the end of March coinciding with Neighbours Day Aotearoa. This change has come about from feedback from a number of applicants who are unable to hold events during the week due to the weather and neighbours being busy in the lead up to Christmas. Neighbourhood Week has been rebranded to “Summer with your Neighbours” to reflect funding being available for the whole summer. Applications will still be called for in July, with a closing date of late August/early September and then final applications being presented to Community Boards for decision in late September/early October.  Refer to attached memorandum on the Neighbourhood Review.  Staff seek the Board’s opinion on the options suggested.

3.2.2   Woolston Library and Community Facility – The Board received a memo from staff dated 29 May 2017 giving further information as requested by the Board at its 17 May 2017 meeting.

3.2.3   Behind the scenes tour of Canterbury Museum - Information has been circulated with an invitation to take part in a behind-the-scenes tour of the Canterbury Museum. The invitation is extended to Mayors, Councillors, Council Chief Executives, Senior Council Managers and Community Board Members from the four contributing local authorities.

Two dates are available, Wednesday 2 August or Tuesday 15 August from 5.30-7.30pm.

Please reply to this invitation from the links contained in the email.

 

3.2.4   Edible Canterbury Charter – Further information was requested by the Board on the Edible Canterbury Charter at its 29 May 2017 meeting; information was sent to the Board on 31 May 2017.  They would like to seek the Board’s direction on whether or not the Board would like to be a signatory of the Charter.

3.2.5   Roimata Community Food Hub – Staff continue to support the work of Michael Reynolds in setting up the food hub in Woolston. He has recently being granted $250 from the Light Bulb Moments Fund. Michael is making a deputation to this meeting.

3.2.6   What’s On Woolston – This event, designed to inform the Woolston community of the many activities that are happening in the area, is going to be held on Tuesday 20th June 6-7.30pm at St Johns Anglican Church, Woolston.

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

3.3.1   Standing Orders - The Board adopted new Standing Orders and Code of Conduct at its 19 May 2017 Board meeting.  There are now some changes that will impact on the Board.  One being:

Petitions (Clause 13) – Petitions may be presented to the Council, a committee or a community board.  Petitions must contain at least 20 signatures and consist of fewer than 150 words (not including signatories).  They must be received by the Chief Executive at least five working days before the date of the meeting at which they will be presented.

Former Standing Order (Clause 3.20) – Every petition presented to the local authority or to any of its committees, must comprise fewer than 50 words (not including signatories) and not be disrespectful, nor use offensive language or include statements made with malice.

3.3.2   Central Business District Speed Limits Changes – Staff have advised in relation to speed limit changes within the Central Business Zones:

The current practice is to inform elected members of a proposal to change a speed limit before consultation. Council has not delegated authority to approve speed limit changes, and makes its decision based on staff and Board recommendations.  It is noted that the Central Business District (CBD) ‘Plan A’ Board exclusions for roads in the Delegations Register do not relate to speed limits. Hence it is the staff view that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board should also make a recommendation to the Council on any proposed CBD speed limit change, unless it was determined the project is of metropolitan significance.   

 There is a Council resolution requiring staff to revisit the speed limit of St Asaph Street (Council meeting 25.8.2016):

Noting the announcement yesterday about the location of the Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery School in St Asaph Street, the location of the Metro Sports Facility and to correct some anomalies in the Bylaw; the Council requests that staff undertake a further review of the central city speed limits, to be reported back by 30 June 2017.

To add some context, the resolution was on a report regarding the speed limit of St Asaph Street.  Council was specifically seeking staff to revisit the speed limit of St Asaph Street, but also address some bylaw issues.  Staff had recently prepared to re-consult on the speed limit of St Asaph Street.  However, other changes are now being considered to the street in addition to the speed limit.  The present view is that the speed limit, speed limit thresholds (which may have parking implications) and other potential changes to St Asaph Street should be consulted on as a package. 

Staff are nearing completion of a review of the Traffic & Parking Bylaw.  A discussing document on the new bylaw should be presented to the Boards in June.  Presently the Council cannot make changes to speed limits for much of the CBD without changing the bylaw because of amendments inserted into the setting of speed limits bylaw by Canterbury Earthquake Recover Authority (CERA) in 2014.  The proposed bylaw amalgamates the Traffic & Parking Bylaw with components of the setting of speed limits bylaw (which becomes redundant). By doing this, the anomalies referred to in the Council resolution above are able to be corrected. 

3.4       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.4.1   Redcliffs Park and Redcliffs School land swap- consultation opened on Monday 29 May and will close on Monday 26 June. Information sessions were held on Tuesday 6 June at Redcliffs School, Wednesday 7 June at the Redcliffs Bowling Club and Saturday 10 June at Redcliffs Park. A separate session was also held with immediate neighbours of the park. 

Consultation

Dates

Redcliffs Parks and Redcliffs School Proposed Land Swap

29 May 2017 - 26 June 2017

Rapanui-Shag Rock Major Cycleway: Proposed 30km Speed Limited

26 May 2017 - 16 June 2017

 

3.5       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.5.1   Draft Annual Plan 2017-18

The Council’s adoption of its Annual Plan for 2017-18 will occur in late June 2017.

3.6       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.6.1   Staff request that the Board identify issues they would like staff to pass on to the Newsline team for consideration as new items.

3.7       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

3.7.1   Staff request that the Board highlight issues they would like included on the Baord report to Council.

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

4.1       Applications for funding from the Strengthening Communities Fund closed on 6 June 2017.  Staff are going through the process of allocating applications for assessment.  Local Community Governance Staff are waiting for a Council report on funding to provide more information to the Board on any changes to funding based on the Funding Review and how this will impact on local funding.

5.   Significant Community Issues

5.1       Community Service Awards

The Board approved a list of people they would like to give Community Service Awards.  The ceremony will be held on 15 June from 6 to 8 pm at the Opawa Community Church.  Staff would like to have a discussion with the Board on future Community Services Awards.

6.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1       Community Facilities

6.1.1   Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre – staff are working with the community to finalise various aspects of community use of the new facility, including storage, bookings and management of the facility. Staff will give the Board an update on the facility at a seminar on Monday 12 June.

6.1.2   Linwood/Woolston Pool.  A memo is being prepared to update the Board on progress with the pool location, options, and next steps.  This will be circulated to all Board members.

6.1.3   Major Cycleways Route (MCR) Heathcote Expressway - Staff briefed the Community Board on the outcome of the further consultation undertaken on Ferry Road as part of the Heathcote Expressway Major Cycle Route.  A third option has been developed to address concerns over on street parking loss. This information will be made available online and delivered to all submitters on Tuesday 6 June 2017.  An information session will be held at the Civic Office on 13 June 2017 9am to allow staff to answer any further questions. Staff will be recommending the Preferred Option as originally consulted, to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment (ITE) Committee on 29 June 2017 for detailed design and construction. All three options will be tabled in the report. The Board are asked to provide comment to the ITE Committee.

6.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

6.2.1   It’s Great to Live Here 2017- staff are partnering with Te Whare Taonga o Nga Iwi Katoa Linwood Resource Centre, Ferrymead Heritage Park, Methodist Mission, the Loft, the Pegasus Partnership Community Worker, and Linwood Library to deliver this year’s expo on Friday 21 July at Eastgate Shopping Centre from 11am to 3pm.

6.2.2   Winter Blast! Staff are partnering with Woolston Club, Friends of Edmonds Factory Gardens, Waltham Community Cottage, local groups and organisations providing activities for seniors in the Linwood-Central- Heathcote area. Winter Blast! will be held on Wednesday 5 July at the Woolston Club from 1.30 – 3.30pm.

6.2.3   The Big Chill. Staff are partnering with activity providers Cheapskates Skateskool, Pedal mania and Flip Out plus Linwood Rugby League, Linfield Kiwisports, Bromley Community Centre, and Strengthening Linwood Youth Trust youthtworkers.  Hellers provides the sausages for a BBQ cooked up by Mai FM who also helps promote the event and brings the basketball hoop to the event. The Big Chill is part of Kids Fest and will be held on Saturday 8 July at Linwood Park from noon to 3pm.

6.2.4   The Annual Breeze Walking Festival will be held from 1 – 15 October 2017 and planning is well underway with key partners and community groups introducing several new and exciting walk options.  Over the two week period there will be 50 walks that take in areas within Christchurch City, the Port Hills and parts of the Waimakariri and Selwyn Districts.

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

7.1       Local Parks Update

7.1.1   Staunton Reserve – Footpath Renewal/Repair Project – The Board requested information on the footpath repairs for Staunton Reserve at its meeting of 29 May 2017.   Funding is available for repairs to earthquake damaged paths on both sides of the riverbank.  Work had originally been planned to be completed this financial year however the Land Drainage Team will be dredging the Woolston Cut soon and will require access from both banks.  A carry forward of funding is planned with the work reprogrammed to be done in September/October 2017.

 

8.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

8.1       Total of unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $51,728.  Funding table is Attachment B.

8.2       Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $46,378.

8.3       Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $4,100.

8.4       Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $1,250.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Neighbour Week Review - May 2017

70

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Funding 2016/17

71

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Louise McLean - Governance Support Officer

Vimbayi Chitaka - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14 June 2017

 

 

16.  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.