Coastal-Burwood Community Board

Supplementary Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 2 October 2017

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Kim Money

Tim Sintes

Tim Baker

David East

Glenn Livingstone

Linda Stewart

 

 

27 September 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Jo Wells

Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

941 6451

jo.wells@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/

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       9.       Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports............................................................. 4  

C       10.     Deputations by Appointment - Ian Reid....................................................................... 5

C       11.     Deputations by Appointment - Alun Davies................................................................. 7

C       12.     Deputations by Appointment - Jo-Ann Cook................................................................ 9

C       13.     Deputations by Appointment - Mark Williams........................................................... 11

STAFF REPORTS

C       14.     9021 Rothesay Road - Application for formed access................................................ 13

C       15.     Coastal-Burwood Youth Develpment Fund  2017/18 Nicholas Ryan........................ 83

C       16.     Coastal-Burwood Neighbourhood Week 2017 - Establishment and Consideration of Applications to the Fund.............................................................................................. 85

C       17.     Westhaven - Tree Condition and Impact on Infrastructure...................................... 91

C       18.     Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report................................................... 101  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

9 Resolution to Include Supplementary Reports

1.       Background

1.1          Approval is sought to submit the following reports to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting on 02 October 2017:

10.   Deputations by Appointment - Ian Reid

11.   Deputations by Appointment - Alun Davies

12.   Deputations by Appointment - Jo-Ann Cook

13.   Deputations by Appointment - Mark Williams

14.   9021 Rothesay Road - Application for formed access

15.   Coastal-Burwood Youth Develpment Fund  2017/18 Nicholas Ryan

16.   Coastal-Burwood Neighbourhood Week 2017 - Establishment and Consideration of Applications to the Fund.

17.   Westhaven - Tree Condition and Impact on Infrastructure

18.   Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report

1.2          The reason, in terms of section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, why the reports were not included on the main agenda is that they were not available at the time the agenda was prepared.

1.3          It is appropriate that the Coastal-Burwood Community Board receive the reports at the current meeting.

2.       Recommendation

2.1          That the reports be received and considered at the Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting on 02 October 2017.

10.   Deputations by Appointment - Ian Reid

11.   Deputations by Appointment - Alun Davies

12.   Deputations by Appointment - Jo-Ann Cook

13.   Deputations by Appointment - Mark Williams

14.   9021 Rothesay Road - Application for formed access

15.   Coastal-Burwood Youth Develpment Fund  2017/18 Nicholas Ryan

16.   Coastal-Burwood Neighbourhood Week 2017 - Establishment and Consideration of Applications to the Fund.

17.   Westhaven - Tree Condition and Impact on Infrastructure

18.   Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report

 

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

10.    Deputations by Appointment - Ian Reid

Reference:

17/1021086

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

Ian Reid – Muka Park Flying Fox

Ian Reid will speak on the report at item seven of the main agenda,  Muka Park: Future of the flying fox.

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

11.    Deputations by Appointment - Alun Davies

Reference:

17/1021437

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

Alun Davies – Muka Park Flying Fox

Alun Davies will speak on the report at item seven of the main agenda,  Muka Park: Future of the flying fox.

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

12.    Deputations by Appointment - Jo-Ann Cook

Reference:

17/1056234

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

9021 Rothesay Road, Application for Formed access – Jo Ann Cook

Jo Ann Cook will speak in relation to the report at item 14 on the agenda, regarding 9021 Rothesay Road, application for formed access.

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

13.    Deputations by Appointment - Mark Williams

Reference:

17/1062449

Contact:

Peter Croucher

peter.croucher@ccc.govt.nz

941 5305

 

 

9021 Rothesay Road, Application for Formed access – Mark Williams

Mark Williams will speak in relation to the report at item 14 on the agenda, regarding 9021 Rothesay Road, application for formed access.

 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

14.    9021 Rothesay Road - Application for formed access

Reference:

17/814000

Contact:

Sarah Stuart

Sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

941 8191

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to review and recommend to Council that it decline the application to form an access and undertake landscaping over the unformed legal road adjoining 9021 Rothesay Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the application received from Novo Group Ltd on behalf of Mr Brent Falvey.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the Council’s SEP, taking into consideration (amongst other things) the number of people affected and/or with an interest, the level of community interest already apparent for the issue, possible environmental, social and cultural impacts, possible costs/risks to the Council, ratepayers and wider community of carrying out the decision, and whether the impact of the decision can be reversed.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Recommends the Council decline the application to form an access and undertake landscaping over the unformed legal road adjoining 9021 Rothesay Road.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.1 Deliver an appropriate level of sealed local road network renewals

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Accept access proposal Option A

·     Option 2 – Accept access proposal Option B

·     Option 3 – Decline the application (preferred option)

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The outcome of public consultation has informed the Council’s decision.

·     The Environment Court has certainty on the Council’s position and can proceed to rule on the applicant’s resource consent appeal.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Application

5.1       An application has been received on behalf of Mr Brent Falvey for permission to form a driveway, and associated landscaping, from Aston Drive over an unformed legal road to 9021 Rothesay Rd in Waimairi Beach.  The affected area is shown on the plan in Attachment A.

5.2       The application provides two alternatives, Option A and Option B, provided in Attachment B.

9021 Rothesay Rd

5.3       The 599 m2 site at 9021 Rothesay Rd is legally described as Lot 11 DP 5121 and held in title CB359/4.  It is owned by Elizabeth Thompson and has been in her family since it was created through subdivision in 1924.  An aerial plan is included in Attachment A.

Resource consent

5.4       The applicant has entered into a binding sale and purchase agreement to buy the land at 9021 Rothesay subject to obtaining resource consent to build a dwelling on the site.  The resource consent application was declined following public notification.

5.5       Residents living immediately to the south of the unformed road are opposed to the applicant’s development of the site at 9021 Rothesay Rd.  Submissions received in response to public notification of the resource consent totalled 28 submissions (12 in support and 18 in opposition).

5.6       It was subsequently appealed to the Environment Court which has put the proceedings on hold until November 2017 to allow time for the Council to provide certainty over the potential use of the unformed legal road.

5.7       The access options reviewed in this report would not eventuate if the resource consent is refused in the Environment Court appeal.

Unformed road

5.8       An unformed stretch of road (“the unformed road”) extends from Aston Drive to the track known as Whiskey Road.  It is 20m wide grassed area with a gravel footpath leading to the beach. The Council owns all of the land to the north of the unformed road, apart from the site at 9021 Rothesay Rd.  The northern area forms part of Bottle Lake Forest park.

5.9       Vehicular access to the unformed road is currently prevented by the Council through the use of bollards, a steel vehicle gate and a pedestrian gateway feature (see Attachment C).   These restrictions provide a pragmatic solution to anticipated problems associated with vehicle access such as littering, car-parking, and antisocial behaviours.  To date the Council has received no complaints regarding the restriction on access.

5.10    The unformed road also provides access to a vacant site at 9007 Marine Parade (identified as “the wedge” in the application).

5.11    The street names in the addresses of the two sites with frontage to the unformed road (9021 Rothesay Road and 9007 Marine Parade) are misnomers and bear no resemblance to the physical roads in the area. 

Emergency access

5.12    The unformed road provides critical access for emergency vehicles to both the beach and the forest park.

Engagement with Council staff

5.13    Council staff provided a legal opinion on the original proposal and subsequently met with the applicant’s lawyer and representatives to discuss a range of issues associated with the proposed application. 

5.14    Council staff expressed the following views during these discussions:

5.14.1 The Transport Asset Planning team was concerned that the proposal to form a driveway will create a demand for car-parking within the legal road.  This might create issues in controlling unwanted consequences such as littering, dumping rubbish, and enforcement.

5.14.2 The Regional Parks team was concerned that allowing such a proposal would result in vehicles entering the coastal area, including along Whiskey Road.  It was also concerned that additional planting may increase the risk and spread of fire from the forest to the residential area to the south.

5.14.3 The Legal Services unit was concerned that planting in the centre of the road (especially of trees) would hinder public passing and repassing.  It was concerned that groupings of plantings in combination with the existing gateway feature at the entrance of the unformed road would give the impression that the road is a private access-way.

5.15    The full application was submitted following engagement with Council staff and is provided in Attachment D.  Council staff suggested the applicant remove references to signage, pedestrian crossings and yellow no-parking lines from the proposal as these are subject to a separate regulatory process.  Staff also suggested the application be simplified to aid consultation.  The applicant subsequently provided an executive summary (Attachment E) but did not wish to remove the road markings or amend the proposed signage.  Staff are not seeking the Community Board’s approval to authorise the signage and yellow lines, i.e. they would not be enforceable.

5.16    The full application contains an opinion from the Council’s legal services unit (Appendix 3 of Attachment D) and its response from Cavell Leitch (Appendix 5 of Attachment D).  These do not relate to the options currently proposed but relate specifically to the original proposal (shown in Plan A & B of Appendix 5, Attachment D).

5.17    From a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) perspective Council staff advise that they have no real safety or crime concerns with either of the options proposed.

Licence to Occupy

5.18    If approved, a Licence to Occupy would be granted to the applicant as owner of 9021 Rothesay Rd for a term to coincide with their occupation of the residence.  A new owner would need to reapply for this right.  An annual fee would be payable and the Council would retain the right to terminate the licence with six months’ notice.  Under the term of the licence the licensee would be responsible for maintenance of the driveway and plantings.

Key differences between options

5.19    In both options the walking track is realigned.  In Option A it is separated from the driveway by a grass verge with bollards to discourage parking.  In Option B the walkway is directly beside the driveway.

5.20    Option A includes a raised curb to discourage vehicles from entering the coastal area.  Option B does not include this.  (Noting that the curb is a matter which would be dealt with at a detailed design phase to ensure emergency vehicle requirements are met).

5.21    The planting configurations differ with the overall effect being that Option A has a greater concentration of planting at the entrance to the road than Option B.  There are positive and negative aspects to this.  From a legal viewpoint it may impede the public’s right to pass and repass over legal road; from a pragmatic perspective it may minimise potential nuisance.

6.   Option 1 – Accept Access Proposal Option A

Option Description

6.1       This option includes:

·   a 3.5 metre wide sealed driveway on the northern side of Rothesay Rd constructed to the Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (CSS);

·   a realigned section of the gravel walking track;

·   a grass verge separating the walking track from the driveway with bollards along the southern side of the driveway to discourage informal parking;

·   a sign reading “Emergency and ranger vehicles only” and “No parking” installed at the Aston Drive end of the driveway, and broken yellow lines either side of the driveway;

·   a curb at the end of the driveway to discourage vehicles entering the coastal area;

·   strips of planting along the northern periphery of the road and the western side of Whiskey Rd along the boundary with 9021 Rothesay Rd.

·   a small area of planting on the north-east side of the gateway feature;

·   an area of planting (small) adjacent to the northwest boundary of 100 Aston Drive.

·   an island of planting in the centre of the road reserve near the Aston Drive intersection.

 

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance were identified by the Engagement Team as the need are to consult neighbouring residents, previous submitters (from the public notification undertaken for the resource consent application) and users of the walkway.  To effect this a leaflet drop was undertaken in the vicinity, previous submitters were contacted directly, and signage was placed on the walkway directing interested parties to the Council’s “Have Your Say” website. 

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       Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Friday 18 August 2017 to Friday 8 September 2017.

6.6       Consultation leaflets were delivered to properties on Aston Drive, Sandpiper Place, Sandalwood Place and Eastwood Rise.  Signage was erected on the site to notify users of the walkway that provides access to the beach.  Those who made submissions when the original resource consent application was publically notified were also included as affected parties and were notified of this consultation.  The consultation was also available on the Council’s Have Your Say website.

6.7       During the course of the engagement 103 submissions were received with the following results:

 

OPTION

NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS

Option A

17

Option B

3

Do not support either option

83

Did not indicate

1

TOTAL

104

 

6.8       The main issues and concerns arising in the submissions opposing the proposal included:

·    The land as it currently stands is used by large numbers of pedestrians on a daily basis, including families with small children and dogs.  This caused significant concern from a large number of submitters in relation to safety if this was to become a formed road for vehicles.

·    The proposed driveway and landscaping are not in keeping with the coastal character of the area.

·    The potential for cars and motorbikes to gain access to the beach reserve.

·    The loss of visual amenity and natural character.

·    Drive on access from Aston Drive on a sharp bend adding risk to traffic and pedestrians crossing at this already extremely busy corner.

·    This area should be left as it is.

·    Do not agree with public land being used for private use.

·    Area used by many people as access to the beach, this change could cause confusion as to whether the public would still be able to use this.

·    If this road is formed this could result in illegal public parking or freedom camping on this strip which could be impossible to police.

·    Could encourage an extension of the road in the future if this access was to be formed.

·    Long term maintenance of the area.

·    This proposal, if approved, would set a precedent which may lead to the development of the remaining sections in the forest.

·    The proposed dwelling is inconsistent with the City Plan

·    Proposed planting will cause a nuisance and takes away from the ‘wild’ planting that is currently there.

·    Would change the current ecosystem.

·    Each option gains maximum benefit for the applicant at the expense of public access.

·    Impact on adjacent private properties.

·    Access is only be formed for the personal benefit of one property which is considered an unsuitable development in a rural setting.

6.9       Feedback received from those submitters who supported either Option A or Option B was:

·     This proposal would tidy up the area.

·     Support the landowner’s right to build on his land.

·     Option A was deemed a safer option than Option B.

6.10    A copy of all submissions received has been sent to elected members separately to this report to assist with their decision making.

6.11    A letter has been sent to all submitters advising of the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Community Board meeting, and how they can speak to their submission if they wish.  Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback received and the Community Board report.

6.12    The overwhelming quantity and quality of the submissions do not support either Option 1 or Option 2.  The community views and preferences indicate that the Council should retain the status quo and not permit formation of the accessway.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.13.1 Inconsistency – not applicable.

6.13.2 Reason for inconsistency - not applicable.

6.13.3 Amendment necessary - not applicable.

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation – Staff time.  Consultation costs.

6.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable. If the application is successful a condition of the Licence to Occupy will be that the licensee is responsible for the maintenance of the driveway and planting areas.

6.16    Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

6.17    Notwithstanding that no road carriageway has been formed on it, the affected land has the status of legal road.  Thus, when considering this application the Council must have regard to this status.

6.18    Under the law, generally speaking, the public has a general right to pass and repass along legal road, whether it formed or not.  Accordingly, the Council cannot authorise a use or occupation of legal road that would unreasonably impede the right of the public to pass and repass along the legal road.

6.19    Whether a use or occupation of legal road creates an impediment to the public’s right of passage is a question of fact and degree according to the particular circumstances involved.  The law recognises that the public’s right of passage is not unlimited and the public doesn’t necessarily have a right of access to every part of the legal road.  Adjoining landowners’ frontager rights must be respected and some degree of obstruction to passage may be acceptable if reasonable in quantum and duration.  Relevant case law has referred to obstructions which constitute “an appreciable interference with the traffic on the street” as being unacceptable.

6.20    The Council will therefore need to consider whether the applicant’s proposals conform to these legal principles.

6.21    The Council will need to consider the extent of planting it will allow and to ensure that the use of the road will not unreasonably impinge on the common law right of the public to pass and repass unhindered.

6.22    A Licence to Occupy would be required as described in 5.18 above.

6.23    The landowner has no legal rights to form the legal road nor does the Council have an obligation to form it.  A decision not to proceed with the application does not affect the landowner’s frontager rights (frontager rights are the rights of the adjoining landowner to access the legal road from their land).

Risks and Mitigations   

6.24    Acceptance of this proposal may result in the following risks:

6.25    Risk of the area being used as a carpark which may result in potential nuisance such as littering and dumping rubbish, and may create enforcement issues.

6.25.1 Treatment: deal with issues as they arise.

6.26    Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

6.27    Risk of vehicles entering the coastal area, including along Whiskey Road. 

6.27.1 Treatment: install bollards and/or a chain barrier to prevent vehicular access.

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

Implementation

6.29    Implementation dependencies - none.

6.30    Implementation timeframe – unknown.  The resource consent is still being considered by the Environment Court.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.31    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Environment Court has certainty on the Council’s position and can proceed to rule on the applicant’s resource consent appeal.

·   The applicant can proceed with his plans dependant on the Environment Court decision.

·   Option A has a greater concentration of planting at the entrance to the road than Option B. This may create the impression that it is more of a private driveway than a road which in this context offers the ability to minimise nuisance.

6.32    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is not supported by the local community.  Those who did support the application favoured Option A above Option B.

·   Option A has a greater concentration of planting at the entrance to the road than Option B. This may create the impression that it is more of a private driveway than a road which may impact on the public’s right to pass and repass.

·   The potential for nuisance associated with car-parking and vehicular access to the coastal area; and

·   The increased risk of the spread of fire from the forest to the residential area to the south.

 

7.   Option 2 – Accept Access Proposal Option B

Option Description

7.1       Option B shares the same features as Option A given below with variance italicised:

·   a 3.5 metre wide sealed driveway on the northern side of Rothesay Rd constructed to the Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (CSS);

·   a realigned section of the gravel walking track (directly adjoins driveway);

·   a sign reading “Emergency and ranger vehicles only” and “No parking” installed at the Aston Drive end of the driveway, and broken yellow lines either side of the driveway;

·   strips of planting along the northern periphery of the road and the western side of Whiskey Rd along the boundary with 9021 Rothesay Rd.

·   a small area of planting on the north-east side of the gateway feature;

·   an area of planting (large) adjacent to the northwest boundary of 100 Aston Drive.

 

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as identified in Option 1 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       See sections 6.5 – 6.12 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – not applicable.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - not applicable.

7.6.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Staff time.  Consultation costs.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable. If the application is successful a condition of the licence will be that the licensee is responsible for the maintenance of the driveway and planting areas.

7.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Refer 6.17 – 6.23 above.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.11    Acceptance of this proposal may result in the following risks:

7.12    Risk of the area being used as a carpark which may result in potential nuisance such as littering and dumping rubbish, and may create enforcement issues.

7.12.1 Treatment: deal with issues as they arise.

7.13    Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium.

7.14    Risk of vehicles entering the coastal area, including along Whiskey Road. 

7.14.1 Treatment: install bollards and/or a chain barrier to prevent vehicular access.

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

 

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies - none.

7.17    Implementation timeframe – unknown.  The resource consent is still being considered by the Environment Court.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   In the context of allowing people to pass and repass, Option B has a lesser concentration of planting at the entrance to the road than Option A. This makes it appear like less of a private driveway than Option A.

·   The Environment Court has certainty on the Council’s position and can proceed to rule on the applicant’s resource consent appeal.

·   The applicant can proceed with his plans dependant on the Environment Court decision.

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is not supported by the local community.  Option B was the least favoured option by those who did support the application.

·   In the context minimising nuisance, Option B has a lesser concentration of planting at the entrance to the road than Option A. This makes it appear like less of a private driveway than Option A.

·   The potential for nuisance associated with car-parking and vehicular access to the coastal area; and

·   The increased risk of the spread of fire from the forest to the residential area to the south.

 

8.   Option 3 – Decline the application (preferred option)

Option Description

8.1       Decline the application to form a driveway and undertake the associated landscaping over the area of unformed legal road adjacent to 9021 Rothesay Rd.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are as identified in Option 1 above.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       See sections 6.5 – 6.12 above.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – not applicable.

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - not applicable.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary - not applicable.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation –not applicable.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

8.9       Funding source - not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.10    There are no implications as the Council is retaining the status quo.

Risks and Mitigations    

8.11    There are no known risks as the Council is retaining the status quo

Implementation

8.12    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

8.13    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   The outcome of public consultation has informed the Council’s decision.

·   The Environment Court has certainty on the Council’s position and can proceed to rule on the applicant’s resource consent appeal.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Plan of affected area and aerial view

24

b

Access proposal Options A & B

25

c

Photos of unformed legal road

27

d

Full application (original) 24.7.17

31

e

Executive summary of original application 7.8.17

81

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

Robert O'Connor - Senior Solicitor

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Stuart Graham - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

15.    Coastal-Burwood Youth Develpment Fund  2017/18 Nicholas Ryan

Reference:

17/995738

Contact:

Heather Davies

Heather.davies@ccc.govt.nz

941 5314

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to consider an application received for the Board's 2017/18 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently $<enter text> remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Nicholas Ryan.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $250 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Nicholas Ryan towards attending ‘The Young Singers in Harmony National Barbershop Championship’.

 

 

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Nicholas Ryan

4.1       Nicholas is 14 years old and attends Burnside High School where he is involved with the vocal specialist music programme.

4.2       Nicholas is part of ‘The Barbershop Courgette’, a barbershop quartet that came third in a recent regional barbershop competition. 

4.3       Their third place position in the regional competition has led to them being invited to attend the ‘Young Singers in Harmony National Barbershop Championship’ in Auckland.

4.4       This national competition takes place on  20th to 22nd September.  

4.5       In addition to music, Nicholas enjoys photography, athletics, swimming and tennis.

4.6       ‘The Barbershop Courgette’ would like to perform at events. Doing well at the competition, will raise their profile and assist them with performance opportunities.

4.7       Nicholas has raised $50 through fundraising activities at school

4.8       The following table provides a breakdown of the cost to attend the championship in Auckland:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Airfare and accommodation

485

                                                                                                 Total

$485

 

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Heather Davies - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

16.    Coastal-Burwood Neighbourhood Week 2017 - Establishment and Consideration of Applications to the Fund.

Reference:

17/938611

Contact:

Katie MacDonald

katie.macdonald@ccc.govt.nz

941 5325

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to establish the 2017 Neighbourhood Week fund and to consider applications to the fund.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board resolves to:

1.         Establish the 2017 Neighbourhood Week fund in the amount of $3,500 from the Coastal-Burwood 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.

2.         Consider applications to the 2017 Neighbourhood Week fund as set out below:

Applicant

Activity

No. Attending

Recommendation

Emily Harris

Street BBQ

40

$140.00

Frances Raine

Street BBQ

50

$150.00

Alicia Fitzpatrick

Halloween Neighbourhood Gathering

200

$200.00

Elissa Smith

BBQ

40

$100.00

Tayanita Scott

Ice Cream and BBQ event

30

$105.00

Doug Boniface

Neighbourhood BBQ

44

$100.00

Bottlelake Residents Association – Betty Chapman

BBQ & Drinks

35

$100.00

Philipa Lynn

Street BBQ

25

$60.00

Kathryn Carey

BBQ

35

$100.00

Southshore Residents Association – Lynda Burdekin

Neighbourhood Beachside Breakfast

60

$100.00

Julie Ziolo-Roberts

Neighbourhood BBQ

36

$130.00

Anglesea South Neighbourhood Support Group – Patrick Brandon

Picnic and Sports Afternoon & BBQ

40

$130.00

Nicola Ellis

Street BBQ

28

$100.00

Sarah Vickers

Street Potluck & BBQ

35

$100.00

Briar Thompson

Breakfast get together

25

$88.00

Koral Fitzgerald

Pre-Christmas NSG Gathering

17

$60.00

Sea Eagles and Manly Place Neighbourhood Support Group – Gillian Kney

BBQ / Picnic

60

$134.00

Remy Barbier

Neighbourhood Afternoon Picnic

14

$50.00

Amy Ridpath

Neighbourhood BBQ

25

$88.00

New Brighton Community Gardens – Joyce Bailey

Open Day

300

$290.00

New Brighton Catholic School – Megan Stewart

Community Gathering

75

$113.00

Te Waka Aroha South Brighton – Samantha Fay

The Great South Brighton Reindeer Hunt and Community BBQ

100

$150.00

Te Wero Gymnastics Club – Tomomi McDonald

Community Open Day

100

$150.00

Salvation Army – Erica Kearse

Christmas Carols and BBQ

120

$180.00

New Brighton Union Parish – Lynda Burdekin

Sunday Neighbourhood BBQ

40

$60.00

Aranui Community Trust – Tracey Hunter

Old Fashioned Picnic

200

$210.00

Parish of Aranui-Wainoni St Ambrose Church – Anne Russell-Brightly

Sunday Afternoon Concert and Afternoon Tea

70

$105.00

Parklands Playcentre – Nicola Jennings

BBQ lunch

60

$57.00

Shirley Plunket Volunteer Group, Royal New Zealand Plunket Society – Vicky Klaus

Shirley Plunket Info and Play day

100

$150.00

 

Note: The staff recommendations total $3,500, with $0 remaining as unspent funding.

3.      Return any funding that is no longer required by successful applicants, for the 2017 Neighbourhood Week fund, to the Coastal-Burwood 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Neighbourhood Week is a dedicated period in which individuals and groups are encouraged to get together and get to know one another locally.  This year Neighbourhood Week is to be held from 27 October 2017 to 31 March 2018.  Applications for funding closed on 1 September 2017.

4.2       Local community groups, including residents' associations and neighbourhood support groups, have been sent information inviting them to apply for the Neighbourhood Week funding that has been allocated by the Board.

4.3       A matrix outlining the applications and staff recommendations is attached (Attachment A), along with the Neighbourhood Week Guidelines (Attachment B) that accompany the application details.

4.4       By the closing date, 29 applications had been received.  The applications were sorted and assessed to ensure that they met the guidelines for the Neighbourhood Week events, and staff recommended an amount to be allocated to each application.

4.5       In making the recommendations staff have endeavoured to maintain consistency over the allocation recommendations according to the amounts applied for and the number of people estimated to be attending the events. Calculations have also been made in accordance with the guideline for Neighbourhood Week that states; "applications from individuals getting together and holding a local gathering will take priority over those held by organisations."

4.6       Organisers of events that are scheduled to take place in a public place situated within an alcohol ban area, will be notified of the ban requirements.

4.7       From time to time due to unforeseen circumstances events are not held or other funding is made available to the organisers and Community Board funding is no longer required for the events. In these cases it is recommended by staff that the unspent funding be returned to the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal-Burwood Neighbourhood Week 2017 MATRIX

88

b

Neighbourhood Week Guidelines 2017

90

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald - Community Support Officer

Natalie Dally - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

17.    Westhaven - Tree Condition and Impact on Infrastructure

Reference:

17/956086

Contact:

Dieter Steinegg

dieter.steinegg@ccc.govt.nz

941 8683

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       To provide an overview of the current infrastructure damage related to/caused by CCC street trees and make recommendations for an appropriate remediation programme. This includes options for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to either approve or decline the replacement of 168 Council owned trees of various sizes which are located on berms outside various properties within Westhaven. Some 50% of these trees are in poor condition and many cause significant damage to infrastructure on Council and private land. It is proposed to undertake the necessary repairs to Council owned infrastructure at the same time.

Origin of Report

1.         This report is generated in response to a request from the then Burwood/Pegasus Community Board BPCB/ 2016/00109.

2.         Requests that problematic trees in the Westhaven subdivision be assessed for suitable replacement trees where necessary due to reported ongoing and increasing damage to infrastructure and private property.

3.         Requests that staff look at updating the acceptable trees on the Infrastructure Design Standard (IDS) register. 

 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by a score of 19.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approve the strategy to replace all trees in question with more suitable species in a more suitable location, where possible.

a.         A letter to inform the residents about the outcome of the Boards decision is going to be delivered to all residents affected.

b.         Seeking resident’s views via an information leaflet in regard to the impact the operation will have on their property/the wider community and choice of replacement trees, where replanting is possible.

c.         A summary of the comments from participating residents will be evaluated and a tree replacement plan produced, for a final review by the residents.

 

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.11 Maintain Street Trees

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the recommendation to replace the  168 trees within Westhaven and replace the trees with different species in a more suitable location (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Decline the recommended strategy to replace the trees in question and continue to undertake tree replacements and repairs to foot path, kerb and channel, vehicle crossings and private property if and when requests for service are generated.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced cost to CCC/ratepayers for future damage to the private/and or council infrastructure

·     Resident satisfaction with the outcome.

·     CCC’s responsibilities under Health and Safety legislation are dealt with in a proactive, programmed and efficient manner rather than leaving Health and Safety risks for members of the public to notify.

·     Replanting in a more suitable location will enhance the local landscape, and mitigate future infrastructure damage.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The removal of the trees will cause some loss of amenity value.

·     The majority of trees are structurally sound and are not currently a threat to public safety.

·     Some residents may want to retain some of these specimen despite their only fair condition.

·     The replacement of healthy trees could set a precedent for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees.

·     Due to existing and newly installed services such as ‘Ultra Fast Broadband’, it might not be possible to replace some trees in the same location.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

 

5.1       The Costal Burwood Community Board requested that a tree assessment and replacement strategy was developed to replace trees that are causing damage to infrastructure or are no longer suitable in their location

5.2       The majority of trees within Westhaven were planted in 1998 as part of the original subdivision planting. 50% of these trees are now considered as in poor condition.

5.3       Some of these trees have caused and will continue to cause damage to infrastructure (e.g. foot path, kerb and channel, vehicle crossings).

5.4       Some of these trees have caused damage to various degrees to private infrastructure (e.g. drive ways, walls, fences, letter boxes).

5.5       Many trees have been planted in a narrow berm with insufficient ground for their future development.

5.6       The installation of root barrier in retrospect is not a viable option, due to the damage the operation would cause to the root structure of these trees.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve to remove  168 trees within Westhaven and replace the trees with different species in a more suitable location (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Approve the recommendation to replace the 168 trees within Westhaven.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is of medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Consistent with section 2 of this report.

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Residents and rate payers are specifically affected by this option due to amenity value of the 168 trees and the on-going damage the trees are causing to the infrastructure on Council and private property.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation.

Tree removal, replanting and establishment cost

Total cost

$153,032.82 CAPEX & OPEX

 

$153,032.82 +GST

Repair to foot path and kerb &channel

 

Total cost

$75,000.00 OPEX

 

 

$75.000.00+GST

Tree renewal and repair to infrastructure

 

Total Cost

 

 

$228.032.82+GST

 

6.8       Funding source – Street Tree Renewal (CAPEX) budget for the removal and replacement of trees where possible. Street Tree Maintenance (OPEX) where replacement plantings are not possible.

6.9       Foot path resurfacing (OPEX) maintenance budget. Kerb &Channel reinstatement (OPEX) maintenance budget.

6.10    Costs to repair damage to private infrastructure: unknown at this point in time.

Legal Implications

6.11    There may be some future maintenance issues and residents concerns with the trees that have caused damage to private infrastructure.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.12    The removal, stump grinding and replanting with an appropriate species of tree would need to be undertaken by a qualified and experienced arboricultural contractor. The public would need to be notified of the works prior to commencement of the works.

Implementation

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

6.14    Implementation timeframe – The preferred time frame for this operation is prior to the replanting period from May-August 2018, subject to weather, traffic management and public notification.

6.15    Implementation timeframe for replacement planting-The replacement planting is preferable during the autumn/winter planting season May-August 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced cost to CCC/ratepayers for future potential damage to the private/and or council infrastructure

·   Resident satisfaction with the outcome.

·   Improved Health and Safety conditions.

·   Replanting in a more suitable location will enhance the local landscape.

·   The work is valued at over $100,000.00 and will therefore go to tender.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The removal of the trees will cause some loss of amenity value.

·   Some residents may want to retain some of these specimen despite their only fair condition.

·   The removal of healthy trees could set a precedent for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees.

·   Funding would have to be found since there is no current budget for this work.

7.   Option 2 - Decline the recommended strategy to remove the trees in question and continue to undertake repairs to foot path, kerb& channel, vehicle crossings and private property on a regular basis

Option Description

7.1       Decline the recommendation to replace the 168 trees within Westhaven.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Residents and rate payers are specifically affected by this option due to amenity value of the trees in question and the ongoing damage the trees are causing to infrastructure on both Council and private property.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs, declining trees are removed if and when required (OPEX and or CAPEX)

7.8       Maintenance to infrastructure/Ongoing Costs, damaged repaired only if notified by a member of the public.

7.9       Costs of repairs of damage caused by Council owned trees to private property.

7.10    Funding source – Street Tree (OPEX) budget when trees are removed but not replaced. Street tree (CAPEX) budget when trees are removed and replaced.

7.11    Foot path resurfacing (OPEX) maintenance budget. Kerb &Channel reinstatement (OPEX) maintenance budget.

Legal Implications

7.12    There may be some future maintenance issues and residents concerns with the trees.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.13    If the recommendation to replace the 168 trees is declined the majority of the trees are highly likely to cause further damage to Council footpath and surrounding infrastructure.  The trees are also highly likely to cause further damage to private infrastructure (e.g. driveways, walls, fences and letter boxes etc.)

7.14    Due to their poor condition, 87 of the 168 trees in question would require to be removed and replaced over a 3-5 year period on an ad hoc basis, anyway.

7.15    To eliminate a potential hazard and after consultation with the Community Board Advisor, 6 dead trees identified in this survey, have been processed for removal before the publication of this report.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies – There is no current budget for this work.

7.17    Implementation timeframe – if budget was available this work could be completed by August 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

7.19    The removal of the trees will cause some loss of amenity value.

7.20    Some residents may be in favour of the retention of the trees despite the damage they are causing and continue to cause to infrastructure.

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

7.22    Damage will continue to occur due to the trees location and proximity to Council infrastructure such as footpath and kerb and channel.

7.23    Further damage will occur due to the trees location and proximity to private infrastructure such as driveways, fences, walls and letter boxes.

7.24    While the condition of the trees do not pose a Health and Safety threat, their roots however, are causing and will continue to cause infrastructure damage and Health and Safety concerns, such as trip hazards and risks of ponding etc.

7.25    Increased costs to the ratepayers and CCC as damage occurs.

7.26    The removal of healthy trees could set a precedent for all future requests for the removal of healthy trees.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Westhaven Tree Assessment for Damage to Infrastructure-Summary

98

 

 

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

Dieter Steinegg - Arborist, Citywide

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

 

18.    Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/999872

Contact:

Jo Wells

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

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 Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.             Receive the Area Update.

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

 

3.1       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.1.1   South Brighton Residents Association

For the Board’s information, the South Brighton Residents Association held their Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, 6 September 2016.

 

The committee election results were as follows:

Chair: Hugo Kristinsson

Treasury: Kirsten Carey

Secretary: Seamus O'Cromtha

Ordinary committee members: Dagný Emma Magnúsdóttir, Greg Scott

 

The Association has advised:

 

“As we welcome a large number of prospective new SBRA members, we would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the fantastic work that Emma has done in her role as SBRA secretary over recent years, and the contributions from former committee members Deidre McGowan and Anna Puentener, who both resigned from the association this year."

 

In accordance with our constitution, the purpose of the SBRA is as follows:

 

a) to promote the progress of South Brighton, a residential suburb of Christchurch that includes all residential properties within the area bounded by the south side of Shackleton Street, Marine Parade, the north side of Caspian Street and the reserves to the west.

b) to promote the health and wellbeing of the community and protect the South Brighton natural and urban environments.

c) to encourage active community participation through constructive and/or social events.

d) to give the South Brighton community a voice.

e) to keep the South Brighton community informed.”

 

 

 

3.1.2   Rubbish Bin for Thomson Park

At the Board meeting on 4 September 2017, they asked staff to investigate providing an additional rubbish bin in Thomson Park by the skating area.

 

Staff advice has been received on this matter.  The Parks Unit has received 10 litter related Customer Service Requests for Thomson Park over the last 18 months. Experience generally shows that adding additional bins does not necessarily reduce the amount of litter dumped in parks; however the increased frequency of bin empties over the busy periods has a positive effect.

 

Staff recommend that with the additional Rangers we monitor the park over the busy period and increase the frequency of bin empties if needed.

 

3.1.3   Outwards Correspondence

·    South Brighton Residents Association – Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options feedback (Attachment A).

·    Christchurch Estuary Association - Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options feedback (Attachment B).

·    Craig MacKay – Board decision on proposed lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics (Attachment C).

·    Lynda Hunt – Board decision on proposed lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics (Attachment D).

·    Dan O'Sullivan – Board decision on proposed lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics (Attachment E).

 

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

3.3.1      Nil to report.

 

3.3       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.4.1      Current Consultations in the Coastal-Burwood Board Area:

·    Palmers Road prosed road renewal.

 

3.5    Submission Opportunities

Nil to report

3.6    Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

No updates to report

3.7    Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

No updates to report.

3.8    Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

Members are invited to consider items for inclusion in Newsline.

 

 

3.9    Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

Board members are requested to highlight significant matters from the meeting to be raised by the Chair at the next Council Meeting (Community Board reports) on Tuesday 10 October.

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

 

4.1     Strengthening Communities Fund

 

The Strengthening Communities Fund opened on Monday 8 May and closed at midnight Tuesday 6 June. The Coastal-Burwood Community Board made the decisions on the allocations from this fund at their meeting on 18 September 2017.  A total of $364,016 was granted to 42 organisations.

 

5    Significant Community Issues

 

5.1       No updates to report.

 

6    Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1       Community Facilities

No updates to report.

6.2.     Partnerships with the community and organisations

No updates to report.

6.2       Infrastructure projects underway

No updates to report.

6.3       Events Report

6.3.1      The Breeze Walking Festival

The Breeze Walking Festival is underway during the school holidays, from the 29th September to the 15 October with over 50 walks to choose from. For more information about the Festival please go to www.walkingfestival.co.nz

6.3.2      Disc Golf Have a go @ Rawhiti Domain

The Christchurch Disc Golf Association are offering a free Disc Golf have a go day at Rawhiti Domain on Saturday 7th October from 10am to 3pm. Disc Golf is a game which is great for all ages and abilities.  A small (6 hole) course will be set up on the Domain (next to the New Brighton Community Gardens, Shaw Avenue), discs will be available as well as tips and tricks taught by volunteers from the ChCh Disc Golf Assn.  This is an opportunity for the community to have a go and give feedback to support a permanent disc golf course at Rawhiti Domain.  Other Domain sports codes and user groups will be invited to attend also and give their feedback about the proposed course.

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

7.1       Local Parks Update

The next update is due in October.

8    Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

8.1  The budget information for the Board’s 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund is attached (Attachment F).

8.2  The Board will note that the DRF establishment amount is $74,966 (not including the carry forward from the previous financial year). This is $1,457 above what was expected.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Outwards Correspondence - South Brighton Residents Association -  Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Feedback

105

b

Outwards Correspondence - Derek Keenan - Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Feedback

107

c

Outwards Correspondence - Craig MacKay - Proposed Lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics at QEII Park

109

d

Outwards Correspondence - Lynda Hunt - Proposed Lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics at QEII Park

110

e

Outwards Correspondence - Dan O Sullivan - Proposed Lease to Christchurch School of Gymnastics at QEII Park

111

f

Coastal-Burwood 2017/18 Discretionary Response and Youth Development Fund Balances

112

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald - Community Support Officer

Natalie Dally - Community Development Advisor

Heather Davies - Community Development Advisor

Jacqui Miller - Community Recreation Advisor

Pip Pearse - Community Recreation Advisor

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Approved By

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Coastal-Burwood Community Board

02 October 2017

 

PDF Creator