Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Tuesday 10 October 2017

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

5 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@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.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 5

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

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 5

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

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

Banks Peninsula Community Board

5.       Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council......................................................... 7

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

6.       Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council.............................. 13

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

7.       Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council................................................ 21

8.       Selwyn St - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit............................................................................. 27

9.       Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route...................... 35

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council..................................... 53

11.     Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Division Street Riccarton Working Party Report ..................................................................................................................................... 59

Papanui-Innes Community Board

12.     Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council.......................................................... 75

13.     Vagues Road - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit....................................................................... 83

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

14.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council................................... 91

15.     Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach............................... 97

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

16.     Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council................................................... 103

STAFF REPORTS

17.     Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Feedback.............................. 109

18.     2017 Annual Report.............................................................................................................. 127

19.     Chief Executive's Report September 2017.......................................................................... 435

20.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 446  

 

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

1.   Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

3.2.1

Jamie Stevenson of Te Whare Roimata

Jamie Stevenson will speak on behalf of Te Whare Roimata regarding item 15 Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach.

 

4.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.  

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

5.        Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/1004546

Contact:

Joan Blatchford, Penelope Goldstone and
Christine Wilson, Chairperson

joan.blatchford@ccc.govt.nz
penelope.goldstone@ccc.govt.nz

941 5643
941 5689

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in August and September 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held meetings on 28 August and 11 September 2017.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

·   Funding for Community Projects Across Banks Peninsula

The Board approved a total of $22,239 for community projects, which will support priority outcomes in our Community Board Plan by strengthening communities, building resilience and enhancing our environment.

·    $2,739 towards building repairs for a pottery shed in Governors Bay

·    $2,000 towards design, construction and installation of a Waharoa for Rapaki Marae

·    $2,000 towards upgrade of the Okuti Hall Kitchen

·    $3,000 towards the Banks Peninsula Walking Festival

·    $3,000 towards repair and renovation of a facility for the Little River Jiu Jitsu Club

·    $3,000 towards Summer with you Neighbours

·    $2,000 towards ANZAC Day services on Banks Peninsula

·    $3,000 towards Community Service Awards for Banks Peninsula

·     $1,500 towards activity costs for Reserve Management Committees

·   Celebrating Parihaka’s Legacy of Non-Violent Resistance

In the mid-1800s thousands of people in the Māori settlement of Parihaka non-violently resisted the confiscation of their land, and hundreds were imprisoned for this in the South Island, including in Lyttelton.

The Board has heard that sections of the seawall between Governors Bay and Allandale were constructed by Parihaka prisoners. We asked for staff advice on the cost of conducting a heritage assessment or preparing a conservation plan for this area.

 

·   No Bus Service to Governors Bay

Governors Bay is currently not connected to the City’s bus network, making it difficult for some residents to access key services. The Community Association, supported by the Board, have asked Environment Canterbury to extend its bus service from Rapaki to Governors Bay. 

·   Illegal Freedom Camping Starting on Summit Road

Non-self-contained freedom campers are using an area next to Ellangowan Scenic Reserve on the Summit Road, where this type of camping is not permitted. We asked that staff provide advice on whether signage can be installed alerting people that this is not allowed.

·   Cass Bay Reserves Management Committee

The Cass Bay Reserves Management Committee spoke to the Board about two priority issues they are passionate about.

1.    Closed Track Highlights Need for Drainage Improvements at Cass Bay

The first is drainage improvements to make tracks safer and easier to walk on. Recently two slips have closed sections of the Head to Head Walkway through Cass Bay, and longstanding drainage issues have eroded other sections. The Board asked for an update from staff on when the track will be reopened, and advice on any existing plans to improve drainage to inform its Long Term Plan submission.

2.    Community Aspiration for Improved Accessibility at Cass Bay

The Committee’s second priority is an aspirational project to provide access for people

with disabilities to facilities at Cass Bay, including accessible play equipment for kids and

parents and access to the beach. The Board asked that staff provide advice on any existing

plans to improve accessibility to inform its Long Term Plan submission.

 

·    Black Cat Raises Safety and Access Concerns with Diamond Harbour Wharf

Black Cat, the operator of the public ferry service between Lyttelton and Diamond Harbour, raised concerns about the condition of the Diamond Harbour Wharf. Passengers in the past have almost fallen between the wharf and ferry, and there is limited access as steps rather than a ramp lead onto the ferry.

The Board asked for staff advice on whether any maintenance could improve safety and access in the near future, and if a more comprehensive upgrade could be completed earlier than planned.

·    Ideas for Unused Public Land Near Lyttelton

A local resident highlighted the opportunity for a strip of unused public land along the coast near Lyttelton to be used as a dog exercise area, or to form part of the Head to Head Walkway. The Board asked that these suggestions be referred to Planning staff and its Head to Head Walkway Working Party.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations from the Board included in this agenda for Council consideration.


 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

       Progress Continues with Head to Head Walkway     

5.1       Status

5.1.1   The Head to Head Walkway is an aspirational project to create a continuous walkway around the coastline of Whakaraupō/Lyttleton Harbour, from Awaroa/Godley Head to Te Piaka/Adderley Head. Communities around Lyttelton Harbour are passionate about this project, and many volunteers help with construction.

5.1.2   This project is a work in progress, with some sections already available as public walking tracks. Other sections will be developed in stages to create linkages.

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/rec-and-sport/walks/multi-day-walks/head-to-head-walkway 

5.1.3   The Head to Head Walkway Working Party, which includes community and Board representatives, held a meeting in August. Staff provided a briefing on completed work, and the Working Party made recommendations on priorities for upcoming work.

5.2       Action Required

5.2.1   Continue to progress Head to Head Walkway.

5.3       Timeframe – Ongoing.

       Plan of Action for Lyttelton Youth

5.4       Status

5.4.1   Staff are working alongside Project Lyttelton and Lyttelton Community House to create a plan of action for youth in Lyttelton.  An eight week programme has commenced at the Recreation Centre, as well as planning for opportunities for youth to be listened to and heard.

5.5       Action Required

5.5.1   Continue developing and implementing action plan.

5.6       Timeframe – Late-2017.

       Huge Community Participation in Design of Governors Bay Jetty

5.7       Status

5.7.1   Last year the Council sold the Governors Bay jetty to a community Trust for $1, with the provision that the Trust would make repairs and then sell the jetty back to the Council for $1.

5.7.2   The project to restore the jetty has reached a milestone – the design stage. Before engaging design engineers, the Trust held a very well-attended drop-in session to hear what the community want to use the jetty for, what features they would like, suggestions for continued fundraising and how they think they can help.

5.8       Action Required

5.8.1   Following community feedback, the Trust will engage design engineers and apply for a resource consent.

5.9       Timeframe – Construction is expected to start in 2018.


 

       Board Successfully Advocates for Lyttelton to Maintain Power during Upgrade 

5.10    Status

5.10.1 The Board successfully advocated for power to be maintained by generators throughout Lyttelton during Orion’s recent upgrade to the power network servicing Lyttelton, Corsair Bay and Cass Bay. The Board highlighted the importance of continuing to provide power to elderly residents and those working from home.

5.10.2 The upgrade, which is now complete, has improved resilience and reliability of the power network for the area.

5.11    Action Required – Nil.

5.12    Timeframe – Complete.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

       Flooding Leads to Road and Walking Track Closures

6.1       Status

6.1.1   Similar to many other areas of the City, Banks Peninsula experienced heavy rain and flooding in July and August. Road closures isolated Diamond Harbour, Little River, Akaroa and outer bays and major slips closed tracks, including the Head to Head Walkway. Maintenance crews worked quickly to re-open roads, but some tracks are still closed.

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   To prevent future slips on tracks comprehensive drainage improvements are required, which the Board has asked to be considered in the Long Term Plan.

6.2.2   The Board asked for staff advice on any implications for future road access of a slip that temporarily closed the main access road into Church Bay, Diamond Harbour and beyond.

6.3       Timeframe – Ongoing

       Communities Continue to Experience Coastal Erosion and Inundation       

6.4       Status

6.4.1   Various Banks Peninsula bays are being affected by coastal erosion and inundation, including debris frequently washing onto roads over low seawalls.

6.5       Action Required

6.5.1   The Board will raise this when providing input into natural hazards planning and the Long Term Plan.

6.5.2   We also asked that staff investigate whether any of these issues can be mitigated by maintenance, for example culvert clearing.

6.6       Timeframe – Ongoing

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board approved its Community Board Plan in July 2017 (link below). In response to issues raised by our communities, we identified seven priority outcomes we would like to achieve in the next couple of years. Progress will be reported on quarterly.

https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Culture-Community/Stats-and-facts-on-Christchurch/Community-Board-Plans/Banks-Peninsula-Community-Board-Plan-2017-2019.pdf

7.2       Board’s Priorities for Long Term Plan

All Community Boards in September attended a workshop with the Council on our communities’ priorities for the Long Term Plan for 2018/28. The Board identified two of the seven outcomes in our Community Board Plan as the highest priority outcomes. The Board will continue to work closely with the Council over the coming months in a series of workshops.

Modern and Robust Infrastructure

The Board’s first priority outcome is that “a modern and robust infrastructure and community facilities network is provided, well-maintained and future-proofed”.

Appropriate infrastructure renewals and repairs are fundamental to well-functioning communities, good quality of life and thriving economic development and tourism. We also need close access to community facilities as many Banks Peninsula communities are remote and easily isolated from Christchurch and each other.

To be a viable place to live, work and visit, our communities are asking for the basics – including open roads, drinkable water when we turn on the tap, functioning wastewater systems and access to community facilities that bring us together.

Healthy Environment

The Board’s second priority outcome is that the environment is well-managed, sustained and enhanced.

This includes Banks Peninsula, which is a metropolitan asset whose stunning landscapes, extensive coastlines, sites of ecological significance and native bush are enjoyed by Christchurch City locals and visitors from around New Zealand and overseas.

Our unique environment creates a sense of place that connects us to each other and underpins our economy. To preserve this part of our identity, our communities are asking for our environment to be well-managed, sustained and enhanced.

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

8.1       Board’s Partnership with the Council Continues to Grow

The Board would like to extend its thanks for the opportunity to work in partnership with the Council on a number of matters this term, including the Long Term Plan, the Britomart Memorial in Akaroa and the Remuneration Review. We have been involved with these from an early stage, which has enabled us to influence decision-making.

The Board looks forward to continuing to work closely with the Council to advocate for policies, projects and budgeting that reflect our communities’ vision and priorities.

8.2       Public Participation Huge on Banks Peninsula

Community engagement is huge on Banks Peninsula at the moment with two recent consultations attracting over 1,400 submissions between them.

The first is the Summit Road Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions, which received 865 submissions. The second is the Proposed Development Plan for Urumau Reserve in Lyttelton, which received over 600 submissions.

8.3       Funding Allocated to Strengthen Communities

The Board in August allocated a total of $146,654 to 20 community organisations across Banks Peninsula for projects ranging from community-led town planning, building resilience with youth and older people, timebanking and events such as Lyttelton SummerFest.

This funding is a valuable resource that enables the Board to support priority outcomes in our Community Board Plan, which strengthens our communities and promotes resilience.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

6.        Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/441380

Contact:

Matt McLintock
David Cartwright, Chairperson

matt.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 6231

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings on 11 and 25 September 2017. Key decisions made under delegation were:

·   Kahu Road No Stopping restriction – the Board approved the stopping of vehicles at any time in Kahu Road near the intersection with Tui Street.

·   Sir William Pickering Drive No Stopping Restriction – The Board approved the stopping of vehicles in Sir William Pickering Drive near its intersection with Sheffield Crescent.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Area Report – The Board approved the grant of an easement to Orion in accordance with the previous Board decision of 12 June 2017, but over the amended area as indicated in Easement Plan ES293695 and to approve submissions to the Council’s Proposed Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, Proposed Stock on roads bylaw 2017 and the Proposed General Bylaw 2017.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Strengthening Communities Fund 2017/18 – Allocation of Grants – The Board resolved to approve its 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund grant allocations totalling $348,300, to 43 projects.  The Board also resolved that the remaining $83,145 be transferred to its 2017/18 discretionary Response Fund for allocation during the 2017/18 year.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2017-19 Community Board – The Board resolve to adopt its Board Plan for 2017-19.

·   Applications to the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund – Board Projects – The Board approved funding totalling $36,000 for the following Board Projects:

Celebrate Bishopdale 2017

Culture Galore 2018

Community Service Awards 2018

Youth Activities and Events

Community Liaison Meetings

Garden Pride Awards 2018

Summer with your Neighbours/Neighbourhood Week 2017.

 

·   Establishment of the 2017/18 Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Youth Development Fund – The Board approved the establishment of it 2017/18 Youth Development Fund and the transfer of $10,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to the 2017/18 Youth Development Fund.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2017 Neighbourhood Week Applications – The Board approved funding totalling $4,000 for 43 neighbourhood events.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Discretionary Response Fund –   The Board approved funding from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund totalling $7,500 to:

The Torlesse Scouting Group/Rima Park Scout Park towards the purchase and installation           of a hot water system.

The Harewood Hockey Club towards their clubroom upgrade.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2017/18 Youth Development Fund – The Board approved a grant of $200 from its 2017/18 Youth Development Fund to Evan Byrne towards representing Canterbury at the 2017 New Zealand Artistic Gymnastics Championships in Nelson in October 2017.

·   Public Forum – The Board heard from the following people through its Public Forums:

-      Isabella Randal, a Youth Development Fund recipient spoke to the Board about her experience competing in the Australian Nationals Gymnastic Competition and thanked the Board for its funding support.

-      Marene Hunter, a resident in Coldstream Court, addressed the Board regarding her ongoing concern regarding the safety for users exiting of Coldstream Walkway into Coldstream Court.

-      Jacob Page from Sport Canterbury regarding Healthy Families Christchurch.

-      Laura Glen, a Youth Development Fund recipient, spoke to the Board about her experience competing in the Under 23 World Rowing Championships in Bulgaria and thanked the Board for its funding support.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations from the Board meetings of 11 and 25 September 2017.

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

         Community Facilities

5.1       Lions Club - Barbeque

Status

The shelter for the Wigram Lions Club barbeque at Burnside Park, has now been completed and, at the time of writing the report, the barbeque was about to be installed.  Connecting power to the barbeque will be the next step.

Lions Club barbeque shelter – Burnside Park

         Infrastructure Projects Underway

5.2       Groynes - Culvert Replacement and Road Widening

5.2.1   Status

Work on the replacement and upgrade of an existing culvert and the widening of the road access where it crosses the causeway at the entrance to the Groynes Reserve, originally planned for beginning the week of 11 September, is now scheduled to begin on the week of 25 September 2017 due to a delay in obtaining the culverts.

The existing culvert is in very poor condition with sections of it breaking off and tree roots growing through, creating blockages and further breakdown of the structure.

Widening of the road will allow for two-way traffic, as well as pedestrian access on both sides of the road over the causeway. 

Contractors will maintain a single lane access for public use from 13 October 2017 until completion, but there will be a three week period, from 24 September until 13 October, where access over the causeway will be closed.

The park itself will remain open with foot access from the south bank, area one.

5.5.2   Timeframe

             The expected completion date will be the end of November 2017.

5.3       Sawyers Arms Road – Signalized Pedestrian Crossing

5.3.1   Status

Work will begin on the installation of a new pedestrian crossing with traffic signals in Sawyers Arms Road, between Cotswold Avenue and Glasnevin Drive, in early October 2017.

Work will be undertaken between 7am and 7pm Monday to Saturday, with the start date coinciding with the Term 3 School Holidays to minimize the disturbance to users. Temporary lane closures through the site may cause minor traffic delays whilst the works are being undertaken.

5.3.2   Timeframe

             Work is weather and road operations dependent, but it is expected that the installation will be completed by late November 2017.

5.4       Uni-Cycle Cycleway

             5.4.1   Status

The Riccarton Bush section of the Uni-Cycle Cycleway, between Kahu Road and Ngahere Street, has now been completed.  This includes the shared pathway through Riccarton Bush and the new carpark and driveway that was also constructed at Riccarton Bush.

Areas along the sides of the path will continue to be taped off while new grass is growing.

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Hamilton Avenue and Otara Street Residents Association

Status

6.1.1   The Hamilton Avenue and Otara Street Residents Association was established seven years ago with the primary objective to coordinate and represent the interests and concerns of the residents and ratepayers of the area surrounding the Fendalton Mall. 

The Association now considers that it is time to review its purpose and future.  The current committee is made up of people who have been committed to supporting the community for a number of years, but now it needs to bring new people into the group to help provide a new perspective and fresh ideas, otherwise the organisation may go into recess or be wound down.

A survey was circulated to 600 hundred homes in and surround the Hamilton Ave and Otara Street areas to get feedback in regards to the future of the organisation.

Action Required

6.1.2   Board staff have assisted the Hamilton Avenue and Otara Street Residents Association by distributing the survey to 600 homes and collating the survey responses following the survey closing off date of 22 September 2017.

Timeframe

6.1.3   Mid October 2017.


 

 

6.2       Traffic Issues and Speeding

Status

6.2.1      Concerns relating to traffic issues, including the increased traffic flow, parking, and speeding, continue to be raised by members of the local community. 

Action Required

6.2.2      Staff are responding to issues raised on an individual basis.

Timeframe

6.2.3      Ongoing.

        

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board adopted its 2017-19 Community Board Plan on 11 September 2017.

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

8.1       Burnside Park Fitness Trail and Breeze Walking Festival

The last of the four fitness station in the Burnside Park Fitness Trail has now been installed. 

The official opening of the Fitness Trail will take place at 11.30am on Saturday, 30 September 2017 at Burnside Park.  The trail consists of four fitness stations spread around the perimeter of the park and includes a sit-up bench, push up bars, stairs, vertical ladder, chin-up bar, shoulder wheel, cross trainer and more.  The opening is part of the Breeze Walking Festival and will include a walk around the park and a demonstration of the four stations. 

 

 


 

 

8.2       Breeze Walking Festival

The Breeze Walking Festival is back for its sixth year, and is bigger than ever with fifty-four walks for all terrains, ages and interests.  This year the festival offers organised walks which will appeal to lovers of nature, culture, art and history.  There is something for everyone.  A booklet outlining the various walks can be found at all Council Libraries and Service Centres, or you can check out the Council website or the festival Facebook Page.

The Walking Festival runs from Saturday 30 September to Sunday 15 October 2017.

8.3       Celebrate Bishopdale

                      Planning is underway for the annual Celebrate Bishopdale Community event to be held at                                         Bishopdale Park on 19 November 2017. 

This free family event involves everyone coming together as a community to celebrate living in Bishopdale.  The day will include entertaining stage performances from local schools, organisations and artists.  It is also a great opportunity for local groups to sell their goods for fundraising and for organisations to promote their services to the community.

Celebrate Bishopdale is a great family fun day where the community can enjoy a wide range of stalls and activities and see what's happening in their community.

         8.4       Neighbourhood Week 2017

This year Neighbourhood Week, which is about bringing people closer together and building stronger community connections, underwent a successful revamp this year.

It saw a change from the events being held over one week in late October/early November 2017, to events being held at any time over the whole summer from Friday 27 October 2017 to the end of March 2018. 

The change came about as a result of feedback from a number of applicants who, in the past, have been unable to hold their Neighbourhood Week events due to the weather and neighbours being busy in the lead up to Christmas.

The change in format this year was reflected in the hashtag “Summer With Your Neighbours” which indicates the move towards more of a “Summer With Your Neighbours” theme while still incorporating Neighbourhood Week.

The revamp of Neighbourhood Week “Summer with Your Neighbours” has been successful with the majority of the Community Boards supporting the change, a good number of positive comments about the change and 53 more applications citywide than in 2016.

Marketing was also successful with a greater focus on social media, including Neighbourly and Facebook posts.  There were a number of advertisements over the radio – you may have heard it once or twice!  Barrington Paper Plus also had a great display.

What is also great is that some of the Community Boards have money available for events later in the summer, that applicants haven’t thought of as yet!

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Kay Rabe - Governance Support Officer

Margaret Henderson - Committee Advisor

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Maryanne Lomax - Community Development Advisor

Lisa Gregory - Community Recreation Advisor

Bronwyn Frost - Community Support Officer

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

7.        Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/1055745

Contact:

Arohanui Grace

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

941 6663

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held meetings on 5 an 15 September 2017.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

3.1          Approving an allocation of $1,000 from the Board’s 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to         2017/18 “Off the Ground Fund”.

3.2          Approving that consultation be undertaken on the options for new bus stops on Simeon and                Milton Streets:

3.3          Approving 18 applications for 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund grants to community    organisations totalling $275,143

3.4          Declining 4 applications for 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund grants.

3.5          Approving $86,000 being transferred to the 2017/18 Spreydon-Cashmere Discretionary                  Response Fund.

3.6          Approving the making of a grant of $400 from the Board’s 2017/18 Discretionary Response           Fund to the Christchurch South Community Watch Inc. towards the Auditor and Stationery          Miscellaneous project.

3.7          Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the south west side of Selwyn Street commencing at its               intersection with Rosebery Street and extending north westerly for 15 metres and south                          easterly for 18 metres.

3.8          Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the on the south west side of Selwyn Street                         commencing at its intersection with Dobson Street and extending in a north westerly direction                         for 20 metres and in a south easterly direction for 18 metres.

3.9          Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the south west side of Sylvan Street commencing at its               intersection with Lincoln Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 21 metres.

3.10        Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the north side of Centaurus Road commencing at a            point 184 metres south east of its intersection with Armstrong Avenue and extending in an                   easterly direction for 32 metres.

3.11        Revoking the parking restrictions on the east side of Colombo Street, commencing at a point                14 metres south of its intersection with Strickland Street and extending in a southerly direction                    for three metres.

3.12        Prohibiting the stopping of vehicles on the east side of Colombo Street, commencing at a point              14 metres south of its intersection with Strickland Street and extending in a southerly direction                        for three metres.

3.13        Approving the making of a grant of $250 from its 2017/18 Youth Development and                            Achievement Scheme to Aiyana Mason-King towards attending the New Zealand Secondary                Schools Brass Band Course in Napier.

3.14        Approving the making of a grant of $500 from its 2017/18 Youth Development and                            Achievement Scheme to St Thomas' of Canterbury towards participation in The Aims Games in               Tauranga.

3.15       Approving the making of a grant of $100 from its 2017/18 Youth Development and                         Achievement Scheme to Ferrymead Bays towards participation in the Jack McKnight South Island under 10's Festival in Nelson in Nelson from 1 to 3 October 2017.

3.16        Approving the making of a grant of $250 from its 2017/18 Youth Development and                            Achievement Scheme to Maia O'Connor towards participation in the New Zealand Rhythmic       Gymnastics Championships in Auckland.

3.17        Approving the making of a grant of $250 from its 2017/18 Youth Development and                            Achievement Scheme to Henry Copeland towards participation in the Football South Island         Tournament in Nelson.

3.18        Approving 36 Neighbourhood Week Applications totalling $2946.00

 

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Selwyn Street – 40 Kilometre per Hour Variable Speed Limit

4.2       Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass Route

 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

       Dyers Pass guardrails

5.1       Status

The project’s aim is to improve safety for vehicles (including motorcycles) and cyclists by installing new guardrails, undertaking condition related renewal of existing guardrails, and recommending treatments to improve safety for cyclists on Dyers Pass Road from the Governors Bay Road/Main Road intersection to the southernmost intersection with Hackthorne Road.  The project included an assessment of the entire route, including locations with existing guardrails, an inspection of the structural integrity of all existing guardrails and scheduling a forward works programme for new guardrail installation, and existing guardrail repair, beginning with the highest priority locations. Proposed locations where the guardrails will be installed have been defined. A prioritised list of 43 potential safety barrier sites, with associated cost estimates has now been produced generating a forward works programme.  The programme has prioritised sites based on safety, and individual sites have been grouped together to ensure efficiency of design and installation.

5.2       Action Required

The budget allows for the top eleven sites for Dyers Pass Road to progress on to detailed design

5.3       Timeframe

The expectation is that the tender for construction works for the first sites will start first quarter of 2018.

Give Gear Get Great

5.4       Status

Give Gear Get Great was a Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board initiative approved in August 2015 to run a sports equipment donation to help reduce barriers to participation for children to partake in sport and be active.  This was advertised throughout the ward area and sporting equipment and sports shoes were donated over a seven month period before they were then recycled back into the community at PHITfest (a Pacific Sports tournament) on Easter Monday 2016.  The initiative was hugely successful, with all donated items being given out.

Due to the popularity of recycling outgrown and not used sporting equipment, the initiative was opened all year round for donations, with a view to recycle the equipment at the beginning of the winter and summer codes at community events.   Local staff have approached schools, churches and sporting organisations in the area around working together to have wheelie bins positioned locally for children/youth/adults to drop off equipment and shoes.  Wheelie bins have been obtained and will be provided and emptied on a regular basis.

Bins were recently provided to West Spreydon School and the Board Chairperson attended a school assembly to outline the programme.

5.5       Action Required

             The donations programme is currently underway and will be ongoing.

5.6       Timeframe

It is anticipated that the first donations will be recycled back into the community at Hoon Hay Fiesta in November 2017, if enough donations have been received.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

Alcohol Licensing

6.1       Status

Recent notifications of applications for alcohol licences in the Spreydon-Cashmere wards have highlighted community interest in this process. The Board considers that it would be useful for residents to be informed about alcohol licensing the process and how it works

6.2       Action Required

The Board plans to host a community presentation on the alcohol licensing process to provide interested persons with an understanding of the process and their opportunities to be involved.

6.3       Timeframe

Staff are currently working on arranging a presentation on this topic before Christmas.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       Development of the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Plan has been completed. 
The final draft of the Community Board Plan has been circulated to members and adoption of the plan will be considered by the Board at its meeting on 3 October 2017.


 

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

Proposal for an alcohol in public places ban in Addington

As part of the public forum at the Board meeting on 18 August 2017, representatives of Vbase Limited made a presentation on a proposal for a permanent alcohol in public places ban in areas surrounding the Horncastle Arena and AMI Stadium.  The ban area proposed was the same as applies for the Addington Raceway New Zealand Trotting Cup Day alcohol restrictions.     

The Vbase representatives advised that attendees at a range of events, at both AMI Stadium and Horncastle Arena, have been observed consuming alcohol in the car parking areas and immediate public areas prior to entering one of the venues.  Vbase claimed that this localised “pre-loading” is associated with an increase in alcohol-related misbehaviour within events and is reflected in the number of intoxicated patrons evicted from the venues during events.

The representatives reported that incidents of bad behaviour including assault of Vbase staff and members of the public, public nuisance, littering and lewd behaviour in the area have been attributed to intoxication and supplied police reports summarising the numbers of calls to “alcohol harm” incidents in Addington.

Prior to this approach the Board has not been made aware of any ongoing community concerns about the level of alcohol         related disorder in the Addington area.

The Proposal was that a local alcohol in public places ban be put in place to minimise and mitigate alcohol related disorderly behaviour before and after events at Horncastle Arena and AMI stadium, to assist security personnel and venue staff assessing patrons for intoxication, and to raise public awareness about safe drinking and safe drinking environments.

Vbase sought the Board’s support for investigation of an alcohol in public places ban.  

Following the presentation the Board referred the proposal to staff for investigation. Preliminary staff advice was provided at the meeting on 15 September 2017 setting out the provisions in the Local Government Act 2002 regulating this type of bylaw.  In particular and noted, that Section 147A Local Government Act 2002 allows for such bylaws only where they can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms and is an is appropriate and proportionate response to a high level of crime or disorder that can be attributed to alcohol consumption in the area.  In other words a bylaw imposing an alcohol in public places ban is only available where it is necessary to address a proven and significant public order issue and where in all the circumstances the approach is an appropriate one. 

The Board noted that Vbase is seeking to be proactive in managing alcohol related issues in the area.  There was discussion, however, about whether it could be assumed that intoxicated offenders were primarily or largely from the ranks of those consuming alcohol in public places rather than those drinking on licensed premises in the area. The proposal for a permanent ban that would put restrictions in place across Addington 24 hours a day 365 days a year, was seen by the Board as a significant limitation on people’s rights and freedoms and it considered that other less restrictive approaches may be available and effective.

After considering all the information provided the Board concluded that the proposal did not satisfy the statutory requirements and therefore decided not to support it or to recommend to Council that a permanent Alcohol in public places ban be investigated.

 

 

                       

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 15 September 2017

 

8.        Selwyn Street - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

Reference:

17/1017291

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.  Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Selwyn Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Selwyn Street, commencing at a point 22 metres north of its intersection with Milton Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 365 metres.

3.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Selwyn St - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

28

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Selwyn St - 40km/h variable speed limit

33

b

Location Plan

34

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

Selwyn Street - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

Reference:

17/913822

Contact:

John Dore

John.Dore@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board to consider the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour) on Selwyn Street opposite Christchurch South Intermediate as shown on Attachment A, and make a recommendation to the Council for approval and its inclusion in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

1.2       The proposal is located within the road network as shown on Attachment B.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated, in response to community requests and this site being a top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

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.

1.1.1     The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Selwyn Street (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Selwyn Street, commencing at a point 22 metres north of its intersection with Milton Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 365 metres.

3.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation.

 


 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install 40km/h variable speed limit (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

1.1.3     The advantages of this option include:

·     Likely reduction in operational speed, therefore improving the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

1.1.4     The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Council Traffic Operation have an ongoing programme of installing 40km/h variable speed limits outside schools. The signs operate for short periods before and after school, and aim to reduce vehicle speeds at times when on-road school related activity is high - making it safer for school children to cross busy roads near their school.

5.2       Potential sites must meet a specified criteria set by NZTA and are prioritised using  a methodology process endorsed by Council on 25 August 2011 as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.3       A 40km/h variable speed limit on Selwyn Street outside Christchurch South Intermediate ranks as a priority for implementation in the 2017/2018 financial year.

5.4       The proposed 40km/h variable speed limit meets the warrant, times of operation, zone length and control method criteria specified by NZTA.

5.5       Council staff undertook pedestrian surveys and recorded 63 pedestrians crossing Selwyn Street outside the school and a further 16 pedestrians dropped off outside the school. Selwyn Street is classified a collector route with an average weekday traffic volume of around 7000-8000 vehicles.

5.6       As shown on Attachment A variable signs are located on Selwyn Street, with static ‘School Zone Ends’ signs on the opposite side of the road. The intersecting side streets within the Selwyn St variable signs also require static signs to inform motorists they are entering/exiting a different speed limit at certain times.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install a 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone on Selwyn Street (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

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       Key Stakeholder Engagement was carried out with the NZTA, NZ Police and Christchurch South Intermediate. The NZ Police have provided written support for the proposal, NZTA have no objections and some minor amendments to operating times were made following engagement with Christchurch South Intermediate School Principal.

6.6       On Thursday 10 August 2017, an information leaflet was delivered to all properties along Selwyn Street between Milton Street and Bletsoe Avenue which included a plan of where the new signage was to be located and contact details should any residents have any concerns regarding this proposal.

6.7       Information was also supplied to Christchurch South Intermediate School, Cashmere Residents Association, and Somerfield Residents Association, some of which shared in their newsletters.

6.8       Cashmere residents association consulted residents through their normal channels and received no comment, objection or otherwise, to this proposal.

6.9       To date no objections or concerns have been received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $40,000 to supply, install and commission signs.

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.13    Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations    

6.15    None identified.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise school speed zone.

6.17    Implementation timeframe - Installed by December 2017.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     Likely reduction in operational speed, therefore improving the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

1.1.5     Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

1.1.6     Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it is increased with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It does not address the safety concerns of the school and that of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Selwyn St - 40km/h variable speed limit

 

b 

Location Plan

 

 

 

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

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Samantha Sharland - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board  – 15 September 2017

 

9.        Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route

Reference:

17/1017416

Contact:

Sandra Novais

sandra.novais@ccc.govt.nz

941 8018

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommended to Council that:

1.    The project scope description CPMS ID 17211 be changed from “Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route” to “Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Improvements – Dyers Pass route”.

 

2.  Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council resolves that:

1.    The scope of the project identified in the Long Term Plan as item  CPMS ID 17211 be changed from “Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route” to “Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Improvements – Dyers Pass route” to reflect that the cycle safety fences not be installed but general Cycle Safety improvement be made as set out  in Option 1 in the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route

36

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option Plans

46

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route

Reference:

17/796682

Contact:

Sandra Novais

Sandra.novais@ccc.govt.nz

941-8018

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is request that the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommend the change in scope of this project to Council, as installation of pedestrian/cycle fences was not recommended by project team after scheme investigation for the project.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and it is being provided as background for Council decision and Community Board recommendation.

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 using the engagement significance matrix. The engagement assessment performed by staff shows that the matter is of low significance for the following reasons:

2.1.2   As a safety project this project provides positive benefits for the community.

2.1.3   This project is an information only project as there is no opportunity for feedback to influence the decision as it is being done for safety reasons.

2.1.4   Relevant community groups and affected residents will be notified ahead of the project installation.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommended to Council that:

1.    The project scope description CPMS ID 17211 be changed from “Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route” to “Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Improvements – Dyers Pass route”.

 

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: 16.0.3 Maintain resident satisfaction with roadway condition

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – General Cycle Safety Improvements (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Rigid Fence

·     Option 3 – Flexible Fence

·     Option 4 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The treatments will address recognised issues along Dyers Pass Road, for both uphill and downhill cyclists

·     Treatments target the conflict types and locations recorded in CAS (Crash Analysis System)

·     Treatments will align with Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines

·     The scale and number of treatments can be tailored to fit the project budget

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Potential additional maintenance costs if electronic signs being installed or road widths increased

·     Additional sealed widths may not be utilised if they are not maintained (swept) or the seal joint is rough.

 

5.   Context/Background

Location

5.1       The extent of the site is from the intersection of Governors Bay Road and Main Road in Governors Bay to the intersection of Dyers Pass Road and Hackthorne Road in Cashmere, a distance of 5.9 km.  This is the same site extent as that considered in the Dyers Pass Road Safety Barrier project.

5.2       The evaluation factors for the safety fence selection matrix have been adapted from those used in the Dyers Pass Road Safety Barrier Prioritisation.  The following factors and weightings are specific to sport cyclists and the absence of a safety catch fence at each site.  The evaluation Factors were: Direction; geometry; curve radius; average sealed shoulder width and hazard.


 

Strategic Context

5.3       The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (CTSP) (Christchurch City Council, 2012) is a non-statutory plan that updates Christchurch’s local transport policy in relation to relevant statutory plans, in particular the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Strategy, Regional Policy Statement, Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy and Regional Public Transport Plan, placing a strong emphasis on travel choice by establishing strong networks for all transport options during the next 30 years.

5.4       The CTSP outlines a series of network maps that define each roads role in the overall network.  Dyers Pass Road is not identified on the CTSP as a strategic road, nor does it form part of the freight network or core public transport network.  It is not a walking route or in close proximity to a ‘walkable centre.’ Dyers Pass Road is however identified on the CTSP as a key recreational cycleway.

5.5       Furthermore it is the western most connection to Summit Road which is also identified as a key recreational cycleway.  It is not in close proximity to a key activity area.

Operational Context

5.6       A Network Management Plan (NMP) has been developed for Christchurch.  This is an interim

document that sets out an approach that aims to better manage and plan for the transport system enabling better optimisation and unlocking use potential.

 

5.7       The Plan establishes the key operational principles considering priority of modes, level of service and land use.  These principles, when applied to the transport network identify network deficiencies and inform the type of operational options that can mitigate current and potential congestion and inefficiency issues. Dyers Pass Road is not specifically identified in the current NMP document.

5.8       The leading document for the design of cycle infrastructure is the Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines.  This guide outlines design principles and design concepts that will guide the implementation of the future cycle network outlined in the CTSP.  This document takes the concepts in the guide to a greater level of detail in the development of the cross sections for the cycle routes and widths.

5.9       In addition to these documents, the CCC has various design guidance that supports the delivery of high quality safe cycling environments, through the interface between public and private property.

6.   Option 1 – General Cycle Safety Improvements (preferred option)

Option Description

6.1       The general safety improvement option includes localised treatments along the route, rather than just at safety barrier sites.  This option considers the different operating environments and hazards for cyclists travelling uphill and downhill and therefore different treatments are proposed for the two travel directions.

6.2       Cyclists travelling uphill are travelling slowly and motor vehicles are likely to attempt to pass them.  On the city side, uphill cyclists average around 17 km/h (information sourced from the BIKES! blog).  At this speed, assuming a vehicle is travelling at 40km/h, a longitudinal distance of at least 50m is required for a vehicle to safely pass a cyclist.  Uphill cyclists are also generally sitting as far left in the traffic lane as they can, and can therefore be adversely affected by edge breaks and unswept grit.  


 

6.3       Downhill cyclists are frequently able to match the traffic speed and are more likely to be positioned so that they “claim the lane”.  Downhill cyclists are more likely to be affected by the condition of the roadsurface (eg pot holes) and road geometry.  Due to the speed at which downhill cyclists are travelling, a motor vehicle is going to take longer to pass (than in the uphill direction).

6.4       Uphill treatments may include:

a)         Trimming bank and removing vegetation to improve visibility to assist motor vehicles that wish to overtake a cyclist;

b)        Seal existing gravel shoulders/parking areas to provide space for cyclists to pull left out of the live traffic lane.  Care must be taken however to ensure the join in the seal is smooth and that the shoulder is maintained.  If the seal is rough, not tied into the existing pavement smoothly or not maintained it may discourage cyclists from using it, opting for the traffic lane instead;

c)         Sweep excess grit (which accumulates at the edge of the road);

d)        Installation of electronic warning signs to alert motorists to the presence of cyclists on blind corners or longer stretches of road where passing is difficult; and

e)        Remark edge lines (in some instances the edgelines are unnecessarily wide which reduces the trafficable width for cyclists, who are likely to avoid riding on the markings).

6.5       Downhill treatments may include:

a)         Repair damaged pavement/seal (eg rutting, potholes);

b)        Seal shoulders where possible;

c)         Sweep excess grit; and

d)        Remark edge lines.

6.6       Concept plans showing potential locations of the various cycle safety treatments are included in attachment B.

6.7       Post and pole cushions, such as the CSP Pacific Biker-Mate (refer to Photograph below) designed for motorcyclists, could be installed on guardrail posts to protect a cyclist, who has lost control and is sliding along the ground, from the hazard posed by guardrail posts or other posts.

                          

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.9       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

6.10    Inform consultation only will be required because the project gives safety benefits to the community.

6.11    Community Board has been informed that safety improvements will be performed in the route, but not the specific type.

6.12    Residents that are close to any of the works will be notified of the project prior to work starting.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.13    This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, especially the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which includes this work. This is due to one of the specific objectives for this project being: “Installation of safety fences on Dyers Pass Road to improve safety for cyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists”.

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation - $300-$1,800/m and does not allow for retaining wall works

6.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be additional maintenance costs.

6.16    Funding source – If Council approve the change in scope then funding can be provided from project “Safety Improvements: Pedestrian/ Cycle Safety Fences - Dyers Pass route – ID 17211” listed in the LTP.

Legal Implications

6.17    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

6.18    N/a

Implementation

6.19    Implementation dependencies - guardrails project on Dyers Pass Road, operations projects and maintenance programmed works in the area.

6.20    Implementation timeframe – coordinate with the Guardrail project to be delivered by FY20 and other operations works happening in the route.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·     The treatments will address recognised issues along Dyers Pass Road, for both uphill and downhill cyclists

·     Treatments target the conflict types and locations recorded in CAS (Crash Analysis System)

·     Treatments will align with Christchurch Cycle Design Guidelines

·     The scale and number of treatments can be tailored to fit the project budget

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Potential additional maintenance costs if electronic signs being installed or road widths increased

·     Additional sealed widths may not be utilised if they are not maintained (swept) or the seal joint is rough.

 

7.   Option 2 – Cycle rigid fence

Option Description

7.1       The rigid barrier option includes the installation of rigid fences at the sites identified as high risk (as per Section 5.2 above).  CSP Pacific have developed a joint pedestrian and vehicle barrier systems in the photo below, which is suitable for environments with posted speed limits of below 70 km/h, and can easily be retrofitted to standard guardrails.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low 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       Inform consultation only will be required because the project gives safety benefits to the community.

7.5       Community Board has been informed that safety improvements are proposed to be performed along the route but, not specifically that cycle fences will be installed.

7.6       Residents that are close to any of the works will be notified of the project prior to work starting.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, especially the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which includes this work.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation - $1,300/m and does not allow for retaining wall works

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be additional maintenance costs to maintain the new assets.

7.10    Funding source – Infrastructure New Safety Improvements

Legal Implications

7.11    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

7.12    Costs and risk that cyclist hitting this fence could do themselves significant harm

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies – time of production for the fences; potential replacement of existing guardrails to allow installation of fences; guardrails project on Dyers Pass Road, operations projects and maintenance programmed works in the area.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – the timeframe will be determined accordingly if this option is adopted and will be in line with required guardrails replacement. Refer to advantages and disadvantages below. Also the works needs to be coordinated with the Guardrail project to be delivered by FY20 and other operations works happening in the route.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·     Highly likely it will prevent errant cyclists from crashing over the bank

·     Proprietary system which is relatively readily available

·     Will not create additional hazard to motor vehicles as it is attached to compliant guardrail

·     Low risk regarding cost uncertainty

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This option is not justified due to the very low occurrence of any pedestrian/cyclists going over the bank.

·     Fence may inadvertently create a hazard for cyclists which directly contradicts the project objective.  There is potential for a collision with a rigid fence to cause greater injuries to cyclists than going over the bank.

·     Older existing guardrail at some sites may need to be replaced to allow installation of the Nu-Guard PVB

8.   Option 3 – Cycle flexible fence

Option Description

8.1       The flexible barrier option includes the design, testing and installation of flexible barriers at the sites identified as high risk (as per Section 5.2 above).  As no proprietary roadside safety barrier exists, one would have to be developed and tested.  Any safety fences considered will need to be installed in such a manner that they do not compromise the compliance of the guardrail.

8.2       Fences with a similar energy absorbing function are often found on ski fields however these fences typically require significant space between the fence and the hazard (i.e. drop off), have multiple fences at one location and are not exposed to the elements for extended periods of time.

Significance

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

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       Inform consultation only will be required because the project gives safety benefits to the community.

8.6       Community Board has been informed that safety improvements will be performed in the route but, not specifically cycle fences will be installed.

8.7       Residents that are close to any of the works will be notified of the project prior to work starting.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, especially the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which includes this work.

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation - $4,000/m and Estimate excludes certification costs and does not allow for retaining wall works.

8.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be additional maintenance costs.

8.11    Funding source – Infrastructure New Safety Improvements

Legal Implications

8.12    Nil

Risks and Mitigations    

8.13    Development and testing of a catch fence type system is likely to be expensive and there will be additional costs such as those associated with obtaining the appropriate safety certification.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies - time of production/testing for the fences; guardrails project on Dyers Pass Road, operations projects and maintenance programmed works in the area.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – fence development could take a long time and the works needs to coordinate with the Guardrail project to be delivered by FY20 and other operations works happening in the route.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·     Likely to prevent errant cyclists from crashing over the bank

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This option is not justified due to the very low occurrence of any pedestrian/cyclists going over the bank.

·     May inadvertently create hazard for cyclists which directly contradicts the project objective

·     No proprietary system exists so fence will have to be designed and tested

·     Fence development could be expensive with no guaranteed solution

·     Design will have to consider risk of motor vehicles damaging fence (existing barriers have been observed to have sustained repeated collisions)

·     Risk of high maintenance costs for flexible barrier system

9.   Option 4 – Do nothing

Option Description

9.1       Doing nothing includes continuing with ongoing maintenance activities on Dyers Pass Road such as sweeping of the road surface, trimming of vegetation, maintaining line marking and repairing damaged sections of road surface.  It does not require the installation of cycle safety fences of any kind.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       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

9.4       Consultation will not be required because this option does not change the current situation and residents that are close to any of the works will be notified of the project prior to work starting.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

9.5       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, especially the Long Term Plan 2015-20, which includes improvements for cyclists along this route.

Financial Implications

9.6       Cost of Implementation - nil

9.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be no additional maintenance costs if the road stays the way it is.

9.8       Funding source – n/a

Legal Implications

9.9       Nil.

Risks and Mitigations   

9.10    Risk of related accidents as no safety works will be undertaken.

Implementation

9.11    Implementation dependencies  - n/a

9.12    Implementation timeframe – n/a

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional costs

9.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not improve safety for cyclists

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Preferred Option Plans

 

 

 

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

Sandra Novais - Project Manager

Approved By

Chris Gregory - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

10.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/477086

Contact:

Gary Watson
Mike Mora, Chairperson

gary.watson@ccc.govt.nz

941 8258

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board Report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held meetings on 12 September 2017 and 26 September 2017.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

·     To decline a request from residents to remove 19 silver birch trees in Rempstone Drive in Halswell.

·     Approving the Stage 1 Landscape Plan for Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub and the landscape plan for the Wigram Basin Extension project, and associated tree removals.

·     The allocation of $9,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the delivery of the 2018 Community Service and Youth Service Awards, and the 2018 Community Pride Garden Awards.

·     The transfer of $15,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response fund to its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund.

·     The allocation of $4,500 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards Summer with Your Neighbours/Neighbourhood Week events.

·     The allocation of $5,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Wards Enhancement Projects.

·     The allocation of $15,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the costs of delivering the Culture Galore 2018 event.

·     The allocation of $1,500 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Anzac Day 2018 local event expenses.

·     The allocation of $3,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the delivery of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Leadership, Upskilling and Networking Day.

·     The allocation of $6,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund towards the production of Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board promotional material.

·     The allocation of $4,000 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund to Scouts New Zealand Torlesse Zone – Rimu Scout Park towards the purchase and installation of a hot water system.

·     The allocation of $700 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to St Thomas of Canterbury College towards the costs of Jayden Hamilton, Michael White, Treye Butler, Finn Claude, Anton Smail, Tom Downes and Jake Tacon competing in the New Zealand Secondary Schools Football Premier Tournament in Napier.

·     The allocation of $500 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to St Thomas of Canterbury College towards the costs of Alex Balard, Nial Bunn, Angus Dempster, Jack Robinson and Harry Tulett competing in the Anchor Aims Games Football Tournament in Tauranga.

·     The allocation of $1,900 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to Hornby High School towards the cost of 19 students competing in the New Zealand Secondary Schools South Island Basketball Boys’ Tournament in Blenheim and the Girls’ Tournament in Westport.

·     The allocation of $500 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to Ashley Kate Stuart towards the cost of her internship at the Asia Europe Foundation.

·     The adoption of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s 2017-2019 Community Board Plan.

·     Approving the revised Option 1 Concept Design (two storey) for the new Riccarton Community Centre, noting that this replaces the design approved by the former Riccarton/Wigram Community Board on 14 June 2016, and further authorises staff to proceed with completing the design, consenting, procurement and construction work to deliver the new facility.

·     Approved the following roads name for the Awatea Park Subdivision

·     Romanee Lane

·     Approved the following road names or the Quarry View Subdivision:

·     Muirhill Street

·     Pegson Lane

·     Foden Lane

·     The allocation of $2,800 towards Neighbourhood Week/Summer with your Neighbours events.

·     The allocation of $300 from its 2017-18Youth Development Fund to Harrison Brindley towards the costs of competing in the Jack McKnight Bowater Football Festival in Nelson.

·     The allocation of $1,200 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to Emma Dobson, James Cloake, Jarred Bowden and Lauren Hampton towards the costs of undertaking a cultural and education visit to Spain.

·     The allocation of $300 from its 2017-18 Youth Development Fund to Elle-Roze Ilkiw towards the costs of attending the New Zealand Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships in Auckland.

·     The allocation of $2,500 from its 2017-18 Discretionary Response Fund to Oak Development Trust towards the Men2Cook programme. 

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following report presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board – Division Street Riccarton Working Party Report.  


 

5.   Significant Local Projects and Initiatives

       Halswell Hub - Youth Hangout

5.1       Status

5.1.1   A new Youth Hangout has opened in the Halswell Hub which is located in the former Halswell Library building.  The Hub is now set up for the young people to meet with the CDN Trust leading this initiative with support from the schools and other youth organisations in the Halswell area. 

5.1.2   The Halswell Community Project (HCP) is the lead agency for the building and they have been working with the community to maximise its use.  Staff are working with the HCP to secure a long-term lease of the building. 

5.2       Action Required

5.2.1   For information only.

5.3       Timeframe

5.3.1   On-going

       Halswell Quarry Opening

5.4       Status

5.4.1   The opening of the heritage Singleman’s Quarry building was held on 4 October 2017.  This was a public event.

5.5       Action Required

5.5.1   Not applicable

5.6       Timeframe

5.6.1   For information only.

       Halswell Heritage Committee

5.7       Status

5.7.1   A groundswell of community interest in local heritage has bought a number of parties together to form a Halswell Heritage Group.  The group is taking stock of the local heritage assets in Halswell and is working on increasing its membership.  They are planning a community conversation to gain further support and identify priorities for the future.  The Council’s Heritage, Parks and Community Governance Team are contributing to assist the group in its work. 

5.8       Action Required

5.8.1   For information only.

5.9       Timeframe

5.9.1   Ongoing

6.   Significant Community Issues

Yaldhurst Memorial Hall

6.1       Status

6.1.1   A joint seminar of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board was held on 2 October 2017 to contribute to providing direction on future options for the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall.


 

6.2       Action Required

6.2.1   For information only.

6.3       Timeframe

6.3.1   Ongoing

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board’s adopted Community Board Plan outcomes and priorities are now included in the published agendas of the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s twice monthly meetings. This is so decisions and actions taken by the Board can be referenced to those identified outcomes and priorities.  Staff will record the Board’s ongoing decisions as a measure against the contents of the Community Board Plan.    

 

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

8.1       Hornby Community Event - a new committee has been formed to plan a Hornby community event after it was identified there were no planned event(s) aimed at bringing the community together in Hornby.  The event will be held on 24 March 2018 and is called "Hello Hornby" – our community party in the park.    Such events have been held in the past but not for a number of years.  There have been community meetings to gather ideas and support from local community groups and now the planning committee, made up of local people with support from Council staff, are meeting regularly to plan the event. 

8.2       The Halswell School was selected to be part of the Rugby League World Cup Trophy Tour ahead of the Rugby League World Cup Tournament being held in New Zealand from 27 October to 2 December 2017. Known as the Paul Barriére Trophy, seven schools were selected as part of the tour, giving pupils a once in a lifetime opportunity to see the cup, the ultimate prize in international rugby league.

8.3       Staff from the local Community Governance Team have been working with community members in the Ilam and Upper Riccarton area to assist in rejuvenating the Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents' Association.  A public meeting held on 23 August 2017 resulted in an interim steering committee being appointed to progress the work of the Association until its Annual General Meeting is held on 11 October 2017.

8.4       There are a number of community-based events being held in the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton wards over the spring period, including:

·        Walking Festival – Chinese National Day Celebration, Saturday 30 September 2017, 11am to 12.30pm, starting Upper Riccarton Library.

·        Walking Festival – Mona Vale Spring Splendour, Thursday 5 October 2017, 10am to 11am, Mona Vale Carpark.

·        Walking Festival – 6th Great Otakaro Avon Walk, Saturday 7 October 2017, 1.30pm to 5pm, Ilam Homestead.

·        Walking Festival – Pukeko Stomp Treasure Hunt, Tuesday 10 October 2017, 9.30am to 12 noon, Halswell Quarry.

·        Heritage Week – Deans of Riccarton: Pioneers of the Plains, Friday 13 to Monday 23 October 2017, 10.30am to 12 noon, Riccarton House.

·        Heritage Week – Halswell Quarry: the Heart of Halswell Exhibition, Friday 13 to Monday 15 October 2017, 11am to 6pm, Te Hāpua: Halswell Centre, 341 Halswell Road.

·        Our Riccarton, Our Community Lets Have Fun Event, Saturday 14 October 2017, 1pm to 4pm, Harrington Park.

·        Heritage Week – Spirited Cemetery Tour, Sunday 15 October 2017, 2pm to 5pm, St Mary's Halswell Cemetery.

·        Heritage Week – Spirited Cemetery Tour, Saturday 21 October 2017, 2pm to 5pm, St Peters Church Corner Cemetery.

·        Templeton Community Day, Sunday 29 October 2017, 11am to 2pm, Templeton Community Centre.

·        Sockburn Community Day, Sunday 29 October 2017, 2pm to 4pm, Sockburn Park (Westside Church if wet).

·        Riccarton Street Party, Sunday 5 November 2017, 11am to 1pm, Elizabeth Street (between Clarence and Division Streets).

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

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

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Noela Letufuga - Community Support Officer

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board  – 12 September 2017

 

11.    Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Division Street Riccarton Working Party Report

Reference:

17/1025652

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

(Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

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

1.         Receive the Division Street Working Party report.

2.         a.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that a senior police opinion be obtained regarding the Council introducing an anti-loitering bylaw.  (Note: This to include how it would compare to other legislation that is currently available and a police prosecution opinion.)

b.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests staff to report back to the Board on the viability and implications of reviewing the free wi-fi at the Riccarton Bus Lounge, this to include options such as:

i.          Limiting the free use of wi-fi to only be available through a password system obtainable from the café vendor in the Riccarton Bus Lounge. 

ii.         Reducing the coverage area of free wi-fi in the immediate area of Central Riccarton

iii.        Installing wi-fi access across all of Riccarton Road.

c.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests staff to investigate the feasibility of the Board funding a camera and its installation that would cover the Division Street area under the overhang of the Westfield Riccarton building. 

d.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that Westfield Riccarton consider installing an additional camera that covers the building overhang along Division Street towards the existing service goods entrance at the end of the street.

e.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests staff to install camera surveillance signs outside the southern Riccarton Bus Lounge.

f.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board encourage the Council's Graffiti Team to continue to work with local businesses and community organisations on graffiti removal education.

g.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that the Council’s Urban Regeneration Team prioritise the Riccarton Road/Division Street/Rotheram Street area for urgent regeneration work and that they work with the local community to explore options to enhance this area of Riccarton.

h.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board include the scheduling of Urban Regeneration work in this area of Riccarton, in its submission to the Council’s next Long Term Plan.

i.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that staff respond back on the viability of the painting of a line in the middle of the footpath on the southern side of Riccarton Road outside the Riccarton Bus Lounge and down to the Farmers section of Westfield Riccarton’s building that would serve to differentiate between the bus waiting area and a pedestrian movement area.

j.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board consider the matter of providing funding for local artwork or other enhancement work, that would improve and/or enhance this area of Riccarton.

k.         That a representative from this working party connect with the Board’s second working party considering the Division Street/Riccarton Road upgrade works.

l.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests from staff a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report on the Division Street area.  (Note: This report would also cover the work of the Board’s other Working Party.)

m.       That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests a staff response that investigates the viability of playing music in the Division Street area that may attract more people to the area.

n.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that staff respond back on the feasibility of upgrading and/or replacing the solid façade on the southern Bus Lounge wall along Division Street with windows to improve visibility.

o.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that staff respond back regarding the viability of including in the standard operating procedures for security staff that:

i.          Police are notified in the advised manner, immediately an incident arises, and

ii.         That the area for the security guards to patrol be extended to include Division Street.

p.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests of the Council's Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee that consideration be given to the two Central Riccarton Bus Lounges remaining open each day until 00.15am to provide a safer environment for those waiting for a bus given that the last bus leaves at 00.13am.

q.         Review the service level of a five employee threshold for the removal of graffiti from businesses, with the view to raising this threshold for businesses in main thoroughfares that would then enable contractors to remove graffiti from businesses in such locations.

 


 

 

2.  Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.      Through the Mayor, meet with the New Zealand Police District Commander to request that an additional police presence be allocated in the vicinity of the Riccarton Bus Lounges during peak times.

2.      Lobby central government, when the opportunity arises, to request a review of the Local Government Act bylaw provisions that would allow arrests to be made or instant fines to be issued for breaching a bylaw.             

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Division Street Riccarton Working Party Report

62

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Division Street Anti-Social Issues Working Party - Report

67

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

        Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Division Street Riccarton Working Party Report

Reference:

17/665134

Contact:

Marie Byrne

marie.byrne@ccc.govt.nz

941 6502

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider and endorse a report containing recommendations of the Working Party established by the Board to investigate options to mitigate anti-social behaviour around the southern bus lounge in Central Riccarton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to fulfil the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolution HHRB/2017/00136 of 9 May 2017.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the localised aspect of the project, the level of community interest and the impact of the issue on those affected in the area.

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

2.1.3   Community and business representatives have been the means of engaging with the wider community for the purposes of this project.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board:

1.         Receive the Division Street Working Party report.

2.         Consider adopting the following Division Street Working Party (Part A) recommendations:

a.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that the Council, through the Mayor, meet with the New Zealand Police District Commander to request that an additional police presence be allocated in the vicinity of the Riccarton Bus Lounges during peak times.

b.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board recommend to the Council to lobby central government, when the opportunity arises, to request a review of the Local Government Act bylaw provisions that would allow arrests to be made or instant fines to be issued for breaching a bylaw.

c.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board submits to the Council that the service level of a five employee threshold for the removal of graffiti from businesses, be reviewed with the view to raising this threshold for businesses in main thoroughfares that would then enable contractors to remove graffiti from businesses in such locations.

d.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board submits to the Council's Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee and to Environment Canterbury that the two Central Riccarton Bus Lounges remain open each day until 00.15am to provide a safer environment for those waiting for a bus.

3.         Consider adopting the following Division Street Working Party (Part C) recommendations:

a.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that a senior police opinion be obtained regarding the Council introducing an anti-loitering bylaw.  (Note: This to include how it would compare to other legislation that is currently available and a police prosecution opinion.)

b.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request staff to report back to the Community Board on the viability and implications of removing the free wi-fi from the Riccarton Bus Lounge, this to include options such as:

i.          Limiting the free use of wi-fi to only be available through a password system obtainable from the café vendor in the Riccarton Bus Lounge. 

ii.         Reducing the coverage area of free wi-fi in the immediate area of Central Riccarton

iii.        Installing wi-fi access across all of Riccarton Road.

c.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board investigate the feasibility of funding a camera and its installation that would cover the Division Street area under the overhang of the Westfield Riccarton building. 

d.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that Westfield Riccarton consider installing an additional camera that covers the building overhang along Division Street towards the existing service goods entrance at the end of the street.

e.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request staff to install camera surveillance signs outside the southern Riccarton Bus Lounge.

f.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board encourage the Council's Graffiti Team to continue to work with local businesses and community organisations on graffiti removal education.

g.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that the Council’s Urban Regeneration Team prioritise the Riccarton Road/Division Street/Rotheram Street area for urgent regeneration work and that they work with the local community to explore options to enhance the area.

h.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board includes the scheduling of Urban Regeneration work in this area in its submission to the Council’s next Long Term Plan.

i.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that staff report back on the viability of the painting of a line in the middle of the footpath on the southern side of Riccarton Road outside the Riccarton Bus Lounge and down to the Farmers section of Westfield Riccarton’s building that would serve to differentiate between the bus waiting area and a pedestrian movement area.

j.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board considers providing funding for local artwork or other enhancement work, that would improve and/or enhance the area.

k.         That there be some members from this working party connecting with the Board’s second working party considering the Division Street/Riccarton Road upgrade works.

l.          That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board concurrently request a thorough Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report on the Division Street area being undertaken by Council staff.  (Note: such a report would also cover the work of the Board’s other Working Party.)

m.       That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request a staff report that investigates the viability of playing music in the Division Street area that may attract more people to the area.

n.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board requests that staff report back on the feasibility of upgrading and/or replacing the solid façade on the southern Bus Lounge wall along Division Street with windows to improve visibility.

o.         That the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board request that staff report back regarding the viability of including in the standard operating procedures for security staff that:

i.          Police are notified in the advised manner, immediately an incident arises, and

ii.         That the area for the security guards to patrol be extended to include Division Street.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Working Party has considered a number of options that could serve to eliminate or at least mitigate against some of the anti-social behaviour that is currently impacting on the Riccarton community.

 

5.   Context/Background

Bus Lounge

5.1       In December 2015 a suburban bus lounge opened on the corner of Riccarton Road and Division Street to cater for waiting bus passengers.  The need for the bus lounge had been determined by Environment Canterbury as part of the Hubs and Spokes Transport Strategy.  Riccarton Road is the busiest bus corridor in the city’s public transport system and an interchange waiting area was an operational requirement. 

5.2       When the bus lounge opened, it immediately attracted young people into the lounge and the outside area.  There was a minority element of young people whose anti-social behaviour was also seen to be intimidating and at times illegal.

5.3       Following some concerning incidents over the December 2015/January 2016, a number of measures were initiated in an attempt to eliminate the anti-social behaviour and make the lounge a safer place to wait in.  This included, but was not limited to:

·     The presence of security guards

·     The installation of seven monitoring cameras

·     The removal of comfortable seating that young people would loiter in

·     The trespassing of transgressing youths from the Bus Lounge

·     The installation and contracting of a café in the Bus Lounge

·     A youth worker presence at key times

·     Removing young people from the Bus Lounge who were loitering and not waiting for a bus

·     The measures have affected the behaviour in varying degrees. 

 

Working Party

5.4       Deputations to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on 9 May 2017 outlined that the anti-social behaviour of some young people was continuing to have a detrimental effect on businesses, commuters, shoppers and passers-by in the area.

5.5       At the 9 May meeting, the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved;

5.5.1   To establish a Working Party:

·     To consider issues and proposed solutions raised previously and from the deputations made to the Board on 9 May 2017, including but not limited to:

CCTV cameras for Division Street and Riccarton Road

Graffiti removal in the area

Cleaning regularity of the area

Lighting of the area to improve safety

Opportunities to address hidden gathering points

Lounge enhancements to improve safety

Regular on site police presence at key times

Changes in security arrangements

Presence of effective staff and volunteers

5.5.2   That the Working Party comprise representation from the Board and the local community.

5.5.3   That the Working Party report back to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board by the end of July 2017 with recommendations for consideration by the Board.

·     Note: Possible medium term proposals identified include making Division Street more attractive, Farmers Riccarton opening up its wall along Division Street, extensions to the bus lounge over the rear driveway with a glass frontage café with indoor/outdoor seating fronting Division Street.

5.6       Members of the Working Party:

·     Mike Mora and Helen Broughton (Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board)

·     Steve Wilson (local business owner)

·     Arthur McKee (local property owner)

·     Kay Page (Central Riccarton Residents' Association)

·     Tony Simons (Riccarton Bush Kilmarnock Residents' Association)

·     Dan Harker and Aaron Thorn (New Zealand Police)

·     Kirstie McNulty (Westfield Mall)

5.7       Jenny Hughey, Council's Community Governance Manager in the Papanui-Innes Community Support and Governance Team, was the Working Party facilitator.

5.8       The Working Party met on four occasions.   The complexity and number of issues to address meant that the July report back to the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board has not been able to be completed until now. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Division Street Anti-Social Issues Working Party - Report

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Jenny Hughey - Principal Advisor

Noela Letufuga - Community Support Officer

Approved By

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

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

12.    Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/1044936

Contact:

Matt McLintock
Ali Jones, Chairperson

matthew.mclintock@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Papanui-Innes Community Board held meetings on 15 September and 29 September.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

·   The Board approved the installation of a new bus stop adjacent to 57 Briggs Road and the installation of road markings for an existing bus stop adjacent to 56 Briggs Road. This was in response to requests for a new bus stop on Briggs Road opposite to the existing bus stop. A Road Safety Audit was carried out and this showed that the new bus stop would have no effect on the safe operation of the Akaroa Street intersection.

·   The Board approved the establishment of the Papanui-Innes Community Board 2017/18 Positive Youth Development Fund with funding of $10,000 from the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund. The purpose of this fund is to celebrate and support young people in the Board’s area by providing financial support for their development.

·   The Board approved a grant of $3,000 from the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund for the delivery of Neighbourhood Week celebrations in the Papanui-Innes Board area.

·   The Board approved 33 applications for 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund grants to community organisations totalling $333,834.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Veitches Road – 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

4.2       Vagues Road – 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of these reports will be considered by the Council at its meeting on 10 October.


 

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

5.1       Paparoa Street School Active School Signs

The Board has supported the installation of active school signs in the Board area. Active school signs are to be installed at Paparoa Street School after consultation with community. New signs of a different design are now to be used and this is the first installation of these signs in Christchurch. The whole sign panel is LED and the lights at the top flash. It is intended that installation will be complete and the signs will be active for the start of Term 4.

5.2       MacFarlane Park

The latest meeting of the Working Party was held on 23 August. The issue of the delay in the rebuild of the St Albans Community Centre was noted and new timelines were discussed to facilitate both the rebuild of the Community Centre and the relocation of the transitional building.

 

The latest working plans were presented – these have remained faithful to the original plans thus mitigating cost. The plans highlighted a new junior playground, close and accessible car parking, pathways, plantings, signage, the pricing schedule and soil testing.

The ability to utilise the land to house a building is pursuant to the Reserves Act. An Order in Council has been exercised by the Chief Executive permitting the land to be used, on a temporary basis until 2021, for a purpose outside the current reserve classification and the associated restrictions and rules.

The Council has a Senior Architectural Designer managing the project and working on the relocation of the building. An application for a resource consent has been submitted.

 

5.3       Norm Withers Family Park

The Board has worked closely with the Withers family over the wording and design for the interpretive sign installed at the Norm Withers Family Park commemorating the contribution of the Withers family to their community. The Park is a neighbourhood park and is situated at 5 Vagues Road.

Norm Withers initiated a referendum calling for a reform of the justice system after his mother was brutally assaulted. Norm was a Shirley/Papanui Board Member and City Councillor from 2001 to 2010 and Deputy Mayor from 2007 to 2010. Norm also represented Canterbury in Soccer and Cricket and managed boxing teams and judged boxing for 27 years

 

5.4       Redwood Plunket Rooms

Funding of $75,000 has been secured for this project and a Programme Manager appointed. Insight Unlimited has been contracted as project management and building restoration consultant.

A project plan including a timeline for this project, including community activation will be provided in October 2017.


 

5.5       280 Westminster Street

Staff are working with the following groups still interested in using 280 Westminster Street:

§ Canterbury Judo

§ Riccarton Players

§ Korfball ex Westminster Sports

There may also be an opportunity to house some of the users from the St Albans Transitional Facility and Hammersley Park School.  Current key issues left to overcome are the maintenance needs to be undertaken before a tenant is known, rent received and rental levels.  Historically Christchurch City Council has obtained a commercial rental; which is highly unaffordable for community groups.

5.6       St Albans Park and Pavilion

The Council is planning to upgrade the sports fields and surrounds at St Albans Park to address long standing drainage issues which have been exacerbated by the earthquakes. Improving the all-weather capacity of this park is a high priority for the Council due to its popularity with the local community and a lack of alternative sports venues nearby.

The plan is to establish sand carpet turf across the fields and install a pumped drainage system. The drainage will include the playground area.

The field construction design is currently being reviewed for final approval and once finalised, the work package will be put out for tender. Field construction is anticipated to begin in November but this will be confirmed at a later date

The existing sports pavilion is earthquake damaged and is to be demolished and then rebuilt in a similar style to pavilions that have recently been built at Te Kahu Park and Ferrymead Park.

Suggestions from key user groups have been incorporated into the design as much as practicable, including toilets, storage, changing rooms, showers and referees’ room. Funding has been approved meaning that the pavilion can now be renewed in full and will not need to be staged.

The old pavilion has now been vacated by clubs and a quote for demolition of the old building is being obtained with the aim of having it removed by the end of October.

The temporary toilets will be relocated near the skate park during construction.


 

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Multi Hazards Seminar 

A presentation of the Multi Hazards report was held on 23 August at the Spencerville Hub. The presentation was delivered by Council staff presenters: the Principal Advisor Natural Resources and the Surface Water Engineer to the Elected Members of Coastal-Burwood and Papanui-Innes Community Boards and the community members of the Styx Catchment Area Working Party.

An overview of the report was presented and a range of questions were raised with the following matters to be considered including seeking input from ECan regarding the stop banks on the Waimakariri River for the bottom section of the river given a scenario that a stop bank breach occurs nearer to the river mouth. Also noted were the developments in the river catchment area and questions about the adequacy of resource consent remedies with regard to run off into the catchment area and the requirements for subdivisions to comply with 1:50 year hazard.

6.2       Parenting Week 21-31 August 2017

The Neighbourhood Trust received funding of $5,000 from the Papanui-Innes Community Board 2016/17 Discretionary Response Fund towards the costs of running Parenting Week 2017. The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood and Coastal-Burwood Community Boards also contributed towards the funding of this event as these are the areas where the majority of events took place.

As in previous years, the Neighbourhood Trust again ran a successful event which included a number of free sessions.

2,200 people were registered for the 36 sessions held over the 10 days. At one session there was a waiting list of 34 and the Neighbourhood Trust have managed to work with the Mental Health Education and Resource Centre to hold another session post-parenting week and invited those on the waiting list to attend.

A total of 36 organisations were involved and a number of hosting organisations had information available in respect of parenting courses they were running and gained sign-ups for Toolbox Parenting courses as a result. Local organisations involved included Papanui Baptist, St Albans Baptist, Te Puna Oraka, Shirley Community Trust, St Albans Uniting Parish, Te Ora Hou and Belfast Community Network.

Feedback from people attending events highlighted that they were grateful for the low cost, as they often have to get babysitters, etc. and this made it easier to attend more events. Attendees also commented on the high quality of speakers and Neighbourhood Trust have received great feedback from speakers and hosts who commended the well-organised the sessions.

6.3       Papanui-Innes Leadership Day

Papanui-Innes Leadership Day will take place on 16 November 2017 for local community leaders working within the Papanui-Innes Community Board area. A “save the date” message has been sent to all those leaders who were identified through existing board relationships and have worked closely with the Papanui-Innes Community Board over the last three years. Most of the finer details are still being worked through and the Papanui-Innes Community Board will be updated in early October 2017.

6.4       The Breeze Walking Festival

The Breeze Walking Festival, a metropolitan festival which is in its sixth year, kicks off on Saturday 30 September and runs to Sunday 15 October in the Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri districts with over 50 walks within 14 days (school holidays).   From child-friendly pram strolls to energetic treks for the physically fit, to informative ambles through the central city, the festival caters for all interests and ages.

There are four walks in the Papanui-Innes area including Going on a Bear Hunt walk for pre-schoolers and school aged children on Monday 2 October at Warren Park and the Source to Sea which follows the Styx and joins the Kaputone Stream to discover the Maori Medicinal Gardens.

The festival is organised by the Christchurch City Council Community Recreation team in partnership with over 50 organisations and groups.  To see the festival programme go to walkingfestival.co.nz

6.5       Positive Aging Expo

The Positive Aging Expo will be held on Monday 2 October at Papanui High School.  The Expo is organised by Age Concern Canterbury to mark the International Day of Older Persons.  There will be numerous exhibits and displays all targeting the older person.

6.6       Because we care – Northcote Event

The “Because we care” Northcote Event will be held at Northcote School on 27 October starting at 3pm. There will be a number of organisations at this event to offer holistic information to the Northcote Community.

6.7       Styx River Catchment Working Party

The latest meeting of the Styx River Catchment Working Party was held on Wednesday 13 August. The meeting was again chaired by Councillor East with community representatives attending. Elected members from the Papanui-Innes and Coastal-Burwood Community Boards also attended.

The Manager, Land Drainage, the Senior Surface Water Planner, the Team Leader Operations Land Drainage and Dr Antony Shadbolt, Landscape Architect and Ecologist Parks, updated the meeting regarding operational matters.

The Working Party worked through a number of issues and discussed the work programmes to undertake dredging and tree removal in the Styx.

Styx Mill ReserveThe next meeting of the Styx River Catchment Working Party will be held on 18 October 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

6.8       Community Day at Sheldon Park

A successful Community Day was hosted at Sheldon Park by the Belfast Community Network.  Approximately 800 people attended of all ages. Highlights for the day were the Fire Brigade’s house evacuation demonstration and pedal mania.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board approved the Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan for public distribution on 25 August 2017.

8.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

Nil to Report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Papanui-Innes Community Board  – 29 September 2017

 

13.    Vagues Road - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

Reference:

17/1068683

Contact:

Penny Gray

penny.gray@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Papanui-Innes Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Vagues Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approves that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Vagues Road, commencing at a point 61 metres north-west of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 228 metres.

3.         Approves that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation.

 

2.  Papanui-Innes Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A (staff recommendation accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Vagues Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approves that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Vagues Road, commencing at a point 61 metres north-west of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 228 metres.

3.         Approves that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Vagues Road - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

85

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Papanui-Innes Ward - St Joseph School Speed Zone Plan TG131043

90

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

Vagues Road - 40km/h Variable Speed Limit

Reference:

17/976827

Contact:

Penny Gray

penny.gray@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Papanui-Innes Community Board to consider the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour) on Vagues Road opposite St Joseph’s School as shown on Attachment A, and make a recommendation to the Council for approval and its inclusion in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to community requests and this site being a top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

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. The decision is easily reversible.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Papanui-Innes Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Vagues Road (school zone), as it meets the requirements of Section 7.1 of the Land Transport Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2003, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on:

a.         Vagues Road, commencing at a point 61 metres north-west of its intersection with Main North Road and extending in a north-westerly direction for a distance of 228 metres.

3.         Approve that subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 and 2 above, that the above mentioned variable speed limit shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install 40km/h variable speed limit (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Likely reduction in operational speed, therefore improving the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       Council Traffic Operation have an ongoing programme of installing 40km/h variable speed limits outside schools. The signs operate for short periods before and after school, and aim to reduce vehicle speeds at times when on-road school related activity is high - making it safer for school children to cross busy roads near their school.

5.2       Potential sites must meet a specified criteria set by NZTA and are prioritised using  a methodology process endorsed by Council on 25 August 2011 as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.3       A 40km/h variable speed limit on Vagues Road outside St Joseph’s School ranks as a priority for implementation in the 2017/2018 financial year.

5.4       The proposed 40km/h variable speed limit meets the warrant and control method criteria specified by NZTA.

5.5       Vagues Road is classified as a local road with an average weekday traffic volume of around 3400 vehicles and an 85th percentile speed of 56.5km/h.

5.6       As shown on Attachment A variable signs are located on Vagues Road, with static ‘School Zone Ends’ signs on the opposite side of the road.  There are no side roads within the zone.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install a 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone on Vagues Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the 40km/h Variable Speed Limit School Zone on Vagues Road as shown on Attachment A.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

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       Key Stakeholder Engagement was carried out with the NZTA, NZ Police and St Joseph’s School. The NZ Police, NZTA and St Joseph’s School have provided written support for the proposal.

6.6       On Monday 28 August 2017, an information leaflet was delivered to all properties on the north side of Vagues Road between 70/72 Vagues Road to Main North Road and on the south side from Nyoli Street to 5 Vagues Road, which included a plan of where the new signage was to be located and contact details should any residents have any concerns regarding this proposal.

6.7       The variable speed limit sign for westbound traffic is located outside of a Council reserve.  The sign for eastbound traffic is located outside of number 42 Vagues Road which has a garage and landscaping strip along the property boundary.  The residents were door knocked on Friday 8 September but no-one was home.  They have been delivered a leaflet and haven’t made comment.

6.8       To date no responses have been received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $40,000 to supply, install and commission signs.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.12    Funding source - School Speed Zone Signs budget.

Legal Implications

6.13    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284).

Risks and Mitigations    

6.14    None identified.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement by the Community Board and approval by Council to legalise school speed zone.

6.16    Implementation timeframe - Installed by February 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Likely reduction in operational speed, therefore improving the safety in the area during the school hours.

·     The electronic speed zone signs enhance driver awareness of the likely presence of children.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

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       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency - it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency - it does not offer any protections to vulnerable road users.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation - $0.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable.

7.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.11    The risk of an accident and the severity of it is increased with this option.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·     No additional cost to Council.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It does not address the safety concerns of the school and that of the community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Papanui-Innes Ward - St Joseph School Speed Zone Plan TG131043

 

 

 

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

Penny Gray - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

14.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/1048619

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga
Sally Buck, Chairperson

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September 2017.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.            Receive the Community Board report.

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held meetings on 4 and 20 September 2017.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

·   The Board approved:

·   Parking restrictions in:

·   Angus Street;

·   Cumnor Terrace;

·   Milton Street

·   Pavitt Street;

·   Fifield Terrace (Accessible Parking for Waltham Pool);

·   Cashel Street;

·   Clifton Terrace;

·   Elgin Street;

·   Arts Centre Loading Zones on Hereford, Worcester Street and Rolleston Avenue.

·   Amendments to the Pick Up Drop Off and 30 minutes Tour Coach and Shuttle Parking on Rolleston Avenue.

·   The removal of bus stops and residents parking bay in Worcester Street.

·   The installation of a Give Way control at Cannon Hill Crescent/Marama Creasant.

·   Removing a tree to allow the Bells Creek Land Recovery Programme to continue.

·   The setting up of 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund.

·   Funding contributions for youth to attend:

·   The Australian National Championships and the World 420 Sailing Championships.

·   A visit to Munchang High School, South Korea.

·   The New Zealand Secondary Schools Premier Football Tournament in Napier.

·   A Sister City exchange programme in Japan 2017.

·   A Spirit of Adventure voyage in 2017.

·   Allocated Linwood-Central-Heathcote Strengthening Communities 2017/18 Fund to 53 community organisations and referred five funding applications to the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

·   Approved 52 Neighbourhood Week applications.  The Board members agreed to hold a Board barbeque during Neighbourhood Week.

·   Discretionary Response Funding contributions to:

·   Te Mapua Child and Youth Trust.

·   Redcliffs Tennis Club.

·   Ferrymead Bays Under 10s Torpedoes.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

       Sumner Main Road Works    

5.1       Status

The Peacock’s Gallop project involves the replacement of the water main, wastewater pipe, road reinstatement, as well as the installation of a guard rail at Rapanui / Shag Rock, and pedestrian crossing points at each end of the project area. The contract was awarded to Fulton Hogan who took possession of the site in July 2017.   The water main replacement is well underway and will be completed in the next two weeks.  The wastewater pipe replacement will commence this week, and some night works will be undertaken in two weeks’ time. 

In early September the contractor was trenching for the water main at the Clifton Hill end of the project area, and discovered a midden, including the presence of bones.  The Accidental Discovery Protocol was activated immediately, with all works stopping, while an archaeologist, who was on site supervising the work, was able to provide the correct advice.  Human bones (part of a femur) were discovered (and confirmed to be from the 1500s period), along with sea lion bones.  A report on the findings is due in early September 2017.  There has been positive feedback on the way in which this discovery was managed. 

5.2       Timeframe

5.2.1   The project is currently tracking to be completed on programme, with all works completed by February 2018.

6.   Significant Community Issues

Gelita - Odour

6.1   Status

6.1.1   Board members have received numerous complaints about the odour from the Gelita Factory in Woolston. 

·    The Board have had one meeting with Environment Canterbury Councillors and staff in June 2017 where the “special” resource consent conditions were explained.  The resource consent conditions were given to allow Gelita to complete earthquake repairs.  The “special” conditions expired in August 2017.

 

 

6.2   Action Required

6.2.1   The Board has planned a workshop to discuss the odour issue with Environment Canterbury staff on 2 October 2017.  Part of the discussion will be to how to assist the effected residents and retail areas.

6.3   Timeframe

6.3.1   Workshop to be held on 2 October 2017.

6.4       Roimata Food Commons – The first planting day was held on Saturday 12th August, which was well attended by the community and a number of Community Board members and Councillors also, a few photos below. The Board is keen to have a landscape plan that incorporates the food hub, green space and cycleway taken out to the community for their input.  Staff are currently working on this.

 

6.5       Painting of Mobility Parking Spaces - The Board at its 19 July 2017 meeting requested staff advice on the amount of funding required for painting the two mobility parking spaces in the Nayland Street carpark with blue paint.

The funding required to paint the two mobility carparks to be all ‘blue’ with a ‘white’ mobility symbol is $4,033.00 (GST exclusive).  The high cost is due to the materials, which in this case is a blue tinted epoxy resin that requires special surface preparation and application.  This figure is only for the initial application of this blue epoxy product and it would expected to re-apply the product in an ongoing maintenance programme every 5 – 10 years with the costs rising with inflation.  

Staff have received advice that a decision to implement this change to the painting specification on mobility carparks would require a Council decision that changes the policy and approves long term funding for this specification upgrade.  If there are 1,000 mobility carparks in Christchurch the cost will be $2 million to implement city wide.

An alternative solution was presented to the Board of putting sensors on the accessibility carparks, the Board fully supported this option and agreed for Sumner carpark to be one of the pilot sites for the sensors.

6.6       Margaret Mahy Playground Carpark - The Board at its 4 September 2017 meeting requested staff advice on parking time restrictions at the Margaret Mahy playground public carpark.

6.6.1   Staff have advised when the playground was handed over to the Council there were no time constraints on the parking which was a major oversite.  Most days the carpark fills with office workers using it as free all day parking.  Parking restrictions have been approved for this carpark for P120 parking restriction.

6.7       Christchurch Coastal Pathway – A report from the Community Board to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the Christchurch Coastal Pathway funding status will be discussed at the Committee’s 13 September 2017 meeting. 

·   At the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting of 13 September the Committee resolved:

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Request for staff to report back to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

2.         Request for staff to include the Christchurch Coastal Pathway in any future funding applications should the opportunity arise.

Notes that the Committee request a memo on whether the Coastal Pathway was originally included in the Major Cycleway Route Programme and any changes of status. 

6.8       Woolston Community Facility – The project is progressing well and on track, with the detailed design now complete.

·   In conjunction with the Ferry Road Master Plan Project, a consultant redesigned the Council owned carpark at the rear of the site.  This has been reviewed by Council staff.  The next step is to share the design with the Community Board and adjacent business owners.  Funding for this is currently being confirmed.

·   The application to transfer part of the adjacent public road to be included with the site boundary has been accepted.

·   The Procurement Plan for the main contractor has been signed off and a request for tender will go to market by the end of September 2017.

A final joint work group will take place before the end of October 2017.

6.9       The Board has heard from the community through the Board’s Public Forum and Correspondence on the following topics:

·    Bus Shelter replacement and moving of two shelters as the bus route has changed.

·    Noise issues around Chester Street East/Kilmore Street.

·    Request for a street tree to be removed.

·    Flooding in Maces Road

·    Public Toilet availability at Redcliffs Village.

·    The issue of schools running a sustainability projects including but not limited to school gardens, receiving the fruit in schools programme and lunches being able to obtain larger recycling and green wheelie bins at no extra cost.

·    The issue of skateboarders and associated noise using the newly formed carpark on Nayland Street, Sumner from 7.30am to approximately 10pm and the impact it is having on a neighbouring motel.

 

7.   Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

7.1       Community Resilience Partnership Fund - The Board has put forward a few applications received from its 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund for consideration under the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.  The Board would like staff to provide information on this Fund so that Boards have full knowledge of it.

7.2       Te Oranga Waikura – the former Linwood Lower Fields, 521 Ferry Road, has now been converted to an urban forest and stormwater basin.  Te Oranga Waikura will be officially opened on Monday 16 October 2017 at 5.30pm.  The Board views this as an innovative environmental way of solving a drainage problem.  A planting day was held on 16 September 2017 at which over 50 people took part in planting 500 plants.  This was the result of work done with local schools and groups to increase awareness on the project and to instil a sense of community ownership

7.3       The Breeze Walking Festival, a metropolitan festival in its sixth year kicks off on Saturday 30 September and runs to Sunday 15 October in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimaikariri districts with over 50 walks within 14 days (School holidays).   From child-friendly pram strolls to energetic treks for the physically fit, to informative ambles through the central city, the festival caters for all interests and ages.  There are 17 walks in the Linwood-Central-Heathcote ward area including 11 in the Central City. There are two feature walks: Dog’s Day Out a family walk and tram ride for friendly dogs at Ferrymead Heritage Park on Saturday 14 October, and Meet in the Middle which celebrates the opening of the Te Ara Otakaro Avon Trail on Sunday 15th October.  The festival is organised by the Christchurch City Council Community Recreation team in partnership with over 50 organisations and groups.  To see the festival programme go to walkingfestival.co.nz

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

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

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 20 September 2017

 

15.    Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach

Reference:

17/1057077

Contact:

Carolyn Ingles

carolyn.ingles@ccc.govt.nz

941 8902

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board request that the Council:

1.         Notes that staff have sought initial advice from Regenerate Christchurch, Te Whare Roimata and Te Puni Kokiri on an appropriate approach to address regeneration in the Linwood Village and Inner City East Area.

2.         Agree to rescind the Council Annual Plan decision CAPL/2017/00022.

3.         Endorse a community-led planning approach to address regeneration issues and opportunities in and surrounding Linwood Village, complementary to the agreed actions of the adopted Linwood Village Master Plan.

4.         Request Regenerate Christchurch to perform an interim facilitation role until such time as the project scope and governance structure for a community-led planning approach is fully established.

 

2.  Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

4.         Request that Inner City East Regeneration be a Standing Item within the Community Board Agenda.

 

3.  Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Notes that staff have sought initial advice from Regenerate Christchurch, Te Whare Roimata and Te Puni Kokiri on an appropriate approach to address regeneration in the Linwood Village and Inner City East Area in fulfilment of the Council Annual Plan decision CAPL/2017/00022.

2.         Endorses a community-led planning approach to address regeneration issues and opportunities in and surrounding Linwood Village, complementary to the agreed actions of the adopted Linwood Village Master Plan.

3.         Requests Regenerate Christchurch to perform a facilitation role including as the project scope and governance structure for a community-led planning approach is fully established.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach

99

 

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

Linwood Village/Inner City East Community-led Planning Approach

Reference:

17/980802

Contact:

Carolyn Ingles

carolyn.ingles@ccc.govt.nz

941 8902

 

 

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 recommend to the Council that its original resolution regarding the wider Linwood Village area be rescinded and replaced with wording to enable a broader application of tools and community leadership.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and relates to Council Annual Plan decision CAPL/2017/00022:

1.2.1   Noting that Linwood Village has a current Masterplan which is not delivering the regeneration opportunities identified by the local communities, request staff to consult with Regenerate Christchurch and provide advice to the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board on the best approach of using the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016."

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the level of existing community interest, and the tangible benefits of a community led process.

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 request that the Council:

1.         Notes that staff have sought initial advice from Regenerate Christchurch, Te Whare Roimata and Te Puni Kokiri on an appropriate approach to address regeneration in the Linwood Village and Inner City East Area.

2.         Agree to rescind the Council Annual Plan decision CAPL/2017/00022.

3.         Endorse a community-led planning approach to address regeneration issues and opportunities in and surrounding Linwood Village, complementary to the agreed actions of the adopted Linwood Village Master Plan.

4.         Request Regenerate Christchurch to perform an interim facilitation role until such time as the project scope and governance structure for a community-led planning approach is fully established.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       During July and August, meetings were held between staff of Christchurch City Council, Regenerate Christchurch, Te Whare Roimata and Te Puni Kokiri to discuss the Annual Plan resolution and next steps. 

4.2       Along with a summary of the findings from Te Whare Roimata’s recent assessment of the area, verbal advice was provided from Regenerate Christchurch; this noted:

4.2.1   The area is located within one of the priority foci for Regenerate Christchurch;

4.2.2   Change needs to be meaningful and address more than just the economic and built environment;

4.2.3   There are tools within the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 that may be of some relevance in due course (specifically, advice to ministers and government agencies and, if necessary, Regeneration Plan, section 71 processes), but that there is also a wider range of tools that may be employed depending on the issues and opportunities considered of most importance to the local community.  In particular, social and housing issues require a cultural and cross-agency lens and community leadership where possible.

4.2.4   Any request to undertake an interim facilitation role (i.e. beyond the advice function as noted in the Council resolution) would need to be formally directed to the Board of Regenerate Christchurch.

4.3       A workshop was recently held with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to bring to their attention: the drawbacks of focusing purely on a single legislative tool; the critical importance to this community (as outlined by Te Whare Roimata) of enabling a community-led rather than agency-led approach; the necessity to investigate a wider range of tools; and the benefit of interim facilitation and establishment of this approach by Regenerate Christchurch.

4.4       Key elements of the change in approach include:

4.4.1   Maintaining a community-led process;

4.4.2   Commitment to high quality and meaningful engagement;

4.4.3   Utilising the benefits of multi-agency participation; and

4.4.4   The understanding and matching of issues/opportunities with a range of regeneration tools.

4.5       The next step would be the establishment of a governance structure that suitably addresses the above points.

4.6       As discussed at the Board workshop, taking a new approach to regeneration in this area will require energy to establish a governance structure and identify key next steps.  Capacity issues for City Council staff are such that an interim facilitation role by Regenerate Christchurch would be highly desirable.

 

5.   Context/Background

Community Board submission

5.1       The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board submission 16273, para 4.2, supported a submission made by Te Whare Roimata Trust for a community-led Revitalisation Plan for the Inner City East and Linwood Village.  The Board noted the social issues in the area and that the community is interested in seeing this change.  Budget was sought for progressing this work.

Te Whare Roimata report

5.2       Te Whare Roimata, supported by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, undertook a community survey in early 2017.  Key findings included:

·   The area scores 9 – 10 on the NZ Social Deprivation Index, with a higher rate of those on sickness, invalids or unemployment benefits, and only 19% of houses in partial or full home ownership compared to 65% in Christchurch.  300 single occupancy rented rooms have been lost since the quakes.

·   Residents greatly value the history and character of the area, its location close to the central city and Eastgate, the strong sense of community, the public transport system and key community assets: the Linwood Community Arts Centre, Stanmore Post Office, transitional Community Café (Kua Hua Ake Te Ao Café), Linwood Village Market and Te Whare Roimata.

·   Residents expressed concern around poverty, begging, social inequality, homelessness, litter, price of housing, untidy vacant lots, loss of local shops and lack of services.

·   The perception is that crime, homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and substance abuse have worsened since the earthquakes.

·   Identified opportunities include: support for those who are poverty stricken and those struggling with substance abuse; more affordable housing with better consideration of tenant matches; better use of Doris Lusk Park; places to gather and community activities; and more positive crime response and relationships.

5.3       Te Whare Roimata’s submission (16313) to the Draft Annual Plan sought $40,000 for the first year’s work on an Inner City East Revitalisation Plan to undertake action research using a community development approach to identify needs, set priorities and develop appropriate responses. 

5.4       The costs of the proposed approach as outlined in this report would, for this initial phase, be absorbed from within existing budgets across relevant organisations.  Depending on the scale of further work required, additional budget, reprioritisation of work or ceasing some projects may be needed.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie Smith - Senior Advisor (Urban Regeneration)

Carolyn Bonis - Team Leader Urban Regeneration

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

16.    Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

17/972347

Contact:

Jo Wells
Tim Sintes, Deputy Chairperson

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

941 6451

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of matters considered by the Community Board arising in September.

 

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report.

2.         Receive the Community Board’s feedback in relation to the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Report. 

 

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held meetings on 4 and 18 September 2017.  Key decisions made under delegation were:

·   The Board provided feedback on the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options report and made a number of recommendations for Council to consider.

·   The Board established the 2017/18 Coastal-Burwood Strengthening Communities Fund at $364,016 and provided 42 groups with grants from this fund.

·   Funding contributions for youth to attend:

o The 2017 ITU Elite Junior World Championships in Rotterdam 14 to 17 September 2017.

o The Canoe Racing NZ High Performance Athlete Pathway for 2017.

o The U15 Rugby Tournament in Wellington 4-8 September 2017.

o NZ Primary Schools Surf Championships in Gisborne 7 to 8 October 2017.

o The 2017 Men’s Artistic Gymnastics National Championships in Nelson 4 to 8 October 2017.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations from the Board included in this agenda for Council consideration.

5.   Significant Projects and Initiatives

The Old School/ Te Kira Tawhiti

         The former Central New Brighton School has re-opened as a community hub for Brighton.  Community groups established at the site include Pregnancy Help Canterbury, the New Internationalist magazine, Otautahi Creative Spaces, Man-up (domestic violence help), rongoa (Maori traditional healing) and Stitch-O-Mat, a sewing initiative which provides learn-to-sew workshops.

The official opening took place on Saturday 23 September and follows many weeks of working bees and community effort to get it ready for community use.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues

6.1       Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Report

The Council resolved on the 31 August 2017 to:

1. Receive the Southshore Floodplain and Management Short Term Options report with attachments. 

2. Approve option 2 to establish emergency works to construction.

3. Refer the remainder of the report to the next Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting for the Board’s comment and request staff report back to the Council meeting 28 September 2017.

 

At its meeting on 4 September, the Coastal-Burwood Community Board provided the following feedback on the staff report to the Council entitled ‘Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options’: 

 

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

 

1.         Receive the information in the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Report with attachments.

2.         Provide feedback to staff on the next steps for Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options to inform a subsequent report to Council.

3.         The Coastal-Burwood Community Board recognises the following three definitions for the description of the Estuary edge in our ward from Bridge Street to the Southshore Spit. Flood mitigation and or Erosion control measures are to be individually established for each area.

(a)    Bridge Street to the Jetty

(b)   Jetty to the Boardwalk

(c)    Southshore - from the northern end of the emergency works completed on 21st July 2017 to the southern end of the Spit.

4.         The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (c) Southshore:

·    Support the resolution of Council on 31 August 2017 to complete the emergency works in Southshore as outlined in option 2. of the report, but,

·    Reserve the option/ability to make further comment/resolution as to ongoing analysis of the OCEL Consultants report of December 2016 and implementation of long term flooding and erosion measures in Southshore.

5.         The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (a) Bridge Street to the Jetty:

·    Recommend immediate approval of measures proposed in the report presented to Council on 31st August 2017 with respect to proposed bunding from Bridge Street to the Jetty on the existing pathway.

6.         The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (b) Jetty to the Boardwalk:

The area between the jetty and the board walk be restored/repaired to pre earthquake condition. (This recognises the preference of local residents, is supported by a submission to the South Brighton Domain Management hearings from the South Brighton Residents Association in 2013 and recently by the Southshore Residents Association whose members also regularly enjoy the use of this recreational reserve).

Noting that this resolution recognises that:

·    The Pleasant Point Yacht Club, South New Brighton Tennis Club, South Brighton Holiday Park and  Walking Track (CCC Assets)

·    That approximately 350m of the gabion / Reno mattress currently in place require minimal to little repair 

·    That 300m of the gabion/reno mattress will require significant repair.

·    Notes significantly that in the context of the Estuary edge in the Coastal-Burwood Ward that natural/salt marsh edge accounts for 80% of the estuary edge and this area is quite a small portion of the edge and is highly valued as a recreation asset 

·    Repair of the existing gabion/Reno mattress is the preferred option and the Board strongly reinforces the notion that this repair does not propose any extension into salt marsh or current natural edge.

·    There is major opposition in the community to creating bunding some distance inland. As such the Board notes that the Gabion edge restoration is preferred and any bunding if required, should be placed closer to the repaired edges where the gabions/Reno mattressing will provide flood and erosion protection. Bunding (if required) can be close to the edge but distant enough to be unaffected by erosion as is the case in Southshore and the proposed bunding in the Bridge Street to the Jetty area. 

6.2  Midge Issues  

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board met with concerned Aranui residents and Wastewater Treatment Plant staff on 4 September 2017.  Staff presented a range of options that could improve the midge issue including monitoring, chemical management, UV treatment, planting vegetation and lighting. 

An “Integrated Midge Management Plan” was presented and discussed.  This plan has been developed to reduce the impact of midges from the oxidation ponds and includes planting along the boundary of the Wastewater Treatment Plant to provide a physical barrier (i.e. vegetation bund) as well as chemical control installations.

 

The Board agreed to support this long-term integrated approach and supports the staff estimated implementation cost of ~$360k/year for ten years being funded through the Long Term Plan.   

 

While residents expressed their concerns about going into another summer without a solution, staff advised that new monitoring will be initiated to assist with optimising chemical dosing.  It is hoped this will reduce midge numbers in the short term, until the Integrated Midge Management Plan is able to be implemented.

 

6.3  Fairway Reserve Basketball Court Noise Issues          

In response to noise issues raised by a resident that lives adjacent to the Fairway Reserve, the Board has requested a noise assessment is conducted and following this that a workshop is arranged with staff and the resident to discuss the results and options going forward. 

 

6.4  Multi Hazards Seminar        

A presentation of the Multi Hazards report was held on 23 August at the Spencerville Hub. The presentation was delivered by Council staff presenters: the Principal Advisor Natural Resources and the Surface Water Engineer to the Elected Members of Coastal-Burwood and Papanui-Innes Community Boards and the community members of the Styx Catchment Area Working Party.

An overview of the report was presented and a range of questions were raised with the following matters to be considered including seeking input from ECan regarding the stop banks on the Waimakariri River for the bottom section of the river given a scenario that a stop bank breach occurs nearer to the river mouth. Also noted were the developments in the river catchment area and questions about the adequacy of resource consent remedies with regard to run off into the catchment area and the requirements for subdivisions to comply with 1:50 year hazard.

6.5  Styx River Catchment Working Party

The latest meeting of the Styx River Catchment Working Party was held on Wednesday 13 August. The meeting was again chaired by Councillor East with community representatives attending. Elected members from the Papanui-Innes and Coastal-Burwood Community Boards also attended.

The Manager, Land Drainage, the Senior Surface Water Planner, the Team Leader Operations Land Drainage and Dr Antony Shadbolt, Landscape Architect and Ecologist Parks, updated the meeting regarding operational matters.

The Working Party worked through a number of issues and discussed the work programmes to undertake dredging and tree removal in the Styx.

   The next meeting of the Styx River Catchment Working Party will be held on 18 October 2017.

  6.6   The Breeze Walking Festival

The Breeze Walking Festival, a metropolitan festival in its sixth year begins on Saturday 30 September and runs to Sunday 15 October in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimaikariri districts with over 50 walks within 14 days (School holidays).   From child-friendly pram strolls to energetic treks for the physically fit, to informative ambles through the central city, the festival caters for all interests and ages.  There are 9 walks in the Coastal-Burwood ward area including two feature walks: Gruffalo Explorer walk for preschoolers on Wednesday 4th October at Bottle Lake Forest, and Meet in the Middle which celebrates the opening of the Te Ara Otakaro Avon Trail on Sunday 15th October.  The festival is organised by the Christchurch City Council Community Recreation team in partnership with over 50 organisations and groups.  To see the festival programme go to walkingfestival.co.nz.

 

6    Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan

Development of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board Plan has been completed. 
The final draft of the Community Board Plan has been circulated to members and adoption of the plan will be considered by the Board at its meeting on 16 October 2017.

 

7    Community Board Significant Matters of Interest 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

17.    Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Feedback

Reference:

17/970448

Contact:

Keith Davison

keith.davison@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of feedback from the Coastal-Burwood Community Board on the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options report and to recommend options to address tidal flooding and estuary edge erosion from Bridge Street south to the Jellicoe Marsh boardwalk (the ‘boardwalk’).

1.2       This report does not revisit the options south of the boardwalk as approved by Council on 24 August 2017 (CNCL/2017/00210).

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being provided to fulfil Council resolution CNCL/2017/00210 from the meeting on 24 August 2017 to refer the remainder of the report to the next Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting for the Board’s comment and request staff report back to the Council meeting 28 September 2017.

2.   Significance

2.1       The options in this report are 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 the impact that natural hazards could have on the local community and the potential implications for the Council of decisions made in this area for other areas within the city also affected by natural hazards.

2.1.2   Given the very limited time available the community engagement and consultation outlined in this report has been limited to discussions with other agencies, including Environment Canterbury, Regenerate Christchurch and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 – Extend Bund on the alignment indicated in the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan, a short term, temporary intervention to reduce flooding risks south of Bridge Street on the estuary side of Brighton Spit.

Note: The Council is currently working on a long term regeneration strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton in collaboration with Regenerate Christchurch

2.         Request that staff engage with Environment Canterbury to clarify roles and responsibilities in this coastal environment and funding options, noting that the timeframe of this report did not allow staff to fully explore these issues.

3.         Request that staff report back to Council at the earliest opportunity the outcomes of these discussions, the implementation timeframes for Option 1 and any issues that arise with pursuing Option 1 and also any options arising out of resolution 2.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding

4.2       A report was presented to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board on 4 September 2017 in response to the Council resolution (CNCL/2017/00210) of 24 August 2017.  The Board was provided a copy of the initial Council report for comment.  Feedback was provided verbally and by resolution.  In summary the feedback was to:

4.2.1   Progress with the works north of the jetty to Bridge Street as proposed in the staff preferred option in the 24 August 2017 Council report Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options.  The Board prefer the bund to be aligned with the existing walkway.

4.2.2   Support the works resolved by Council to stabilise the emergency works south of Jellicoe Marsh.

4.2.3   Propose works between the jetty and the boardwalk to repair and reinstate the estuary edge to pre-earthquake condition, including repair/reinstatement of Reno Mattress along the estuary edge, and to place the bund as close to this edge as feasible.

4.3       The following feasible options have been considered to address tidal flooding and coastal erosion:

·     Option 1 – Extend bund from the boardwalk to Bridge Street on the indicative alignment shown in the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan 2014, continue to monitor and manage the estuary edge consistent with the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan 2014, and investigate all long term erosion management options as part of the Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration strategy (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Extend bund from the boardwalk to Bridge Street along the estuary edge, reclaim eroded land, and repair and renew Reno Mattress where it has failed.

·     Option 3 – Do nothing short term

4.4       A summary of the possible range of options is provided below in Table 1.  The tidal flooding and coastal erosion measures are divided into two areas: north and south of the South New Brighton jetty.  The preferred option is highlighted in bold and is essentially unchanged from the previous recommendation to Council and it is noted that the previous discussion on those earlier options is still relevant to the options presented in this report. 


 

Table 1 – Short Term / temporary options for floodplain management between Bridge Street    and the boardwalk

Area

Option source

Tidal flooding

Coastal erosion

North Area: Bridge Street to the jetty

24 August 2017 Council report /2014 South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

F1. Construct bund in the approximate location as indicated on development plan 

E1. Ongoing management of natural defences and resilience as per management plan/development plan

Community Board resolution CBCB/2017/00145

F2. Construct bund at estuary edge/ top of bank on existing Estuary Walkway

E2. Erosion management of bund may be required - revisit bund design

South Area: Jetty to the boardwalk

24 August 2017 Council report / 2014 South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

F3. Construct bund in location as indicated in development plan

E3. Monitor & manage, realign walkway as required, pilot planting, leave reno mattress

Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy

E4. Investigate all long term options including naturalised edge, Community Board resolution, existing edge

Community Board resolution  CBCB/2017/00145

F4. Construct bund at estuary edge/ top of bank on existing Estuary Walkway

E5. Repair/restore to pre-earthquake edge (gabion/reno mattress)

3.1.1.1.1.          

4.1       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.1.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Bund is able to be delivered in the short term

·     Bund is adaptive as it can easily be modified in the future

·     Consistency with the Council resolution of 3 August 2017 (CNCL/2017/00176)

·     Reduces the risk of tidal flooding in extreme events to up to an estimated 141 properties and 19 homes

·     Consistency with the 2014 South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

·     Provides a consistent treatment of flooding risks to all properties on Brighton Spit

·     Allows long term options for both tidal flooding and coastal erosion (and the effects of climate change) to be considered in wider context of the Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration strategy

·     Allows for ecological restoration of estuary edge including estuarine to forest vegetation sequence and habitat

·     Allows for enhancement of natural landscape values of the estuary edge

·     Provides for cultural values and mahinga kai opportunities on the estuary edge

·     Continues to provide for recreation in unique estuary setting

·     Does not preclude more extensive estuary edge treatment in the future, if desired

4.1.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The budget has been estimated at approximately $1.0 million +/- 40%

·     Greater cost than the Do Nothing Short Term Option but less than the estimated cost of the Extend Bund along Estuary Edge Option

·     Reliant on ongoing maintenance and wet weather responses

4.2       The option put forward by the Coastal-Burwood Community Board is not consistent with the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan. The response to coastal erosion is not considered to be a ‘short term option’.  The Management Plan was prepared under the Reserves Act 1977 and approved by a Council Hearings Panel in 2014. The accompanying Development Plan was approved by the Burwood Pegasus Community Board in 2014.  The Council is required to comply with both these plans.  Any proposed works contrary to either of these plans would require a review of the plans, which would take an estimated 9-12 months.

4.3       Construction of a bund to manage post-earthquake flood risk is considered within the scope of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  Management of the erosion of the estuary edge is only within scope if the erosion would put at risk the land drainage asset.  Management of erosion more generally is outside of the scope of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme, and in the instance of this report, the erosion through the South New Brighton Park, is the responsibility of the Parks Unit and is being dealt with in accordance with the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan.

4.4       Discussions with Environment Canterbury to clarify roles and responsibilities in the coastal environment are on-going. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Coastal Burwood Community Board feedback

5.1       On 31 August 2017 the Council considered a report on Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options (Item 42).  This report proposed three options for potential short term measures to address tidal flooding and rainfall flooding in the area south of Bridge Street along the estuary side of Brighton Spit.  The commentary on risks and issues discussed in the previous report is still relevant to this consideration.  The Council resolved (CNCL/2017/00210) to:

5.1.1   Approve option 2 to stabilise the emergency works to construction.

5.1.2   Refer the remainder of the report to the next Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting for the Board’s comment and request staff report back to the Council meeting 28 September 2017.

5.2       The Coastal-Burwood Community Board (the Board) considered the report at its meeting on 4 September 2017 and resolved (CBCB/2017/00145) to:

5.2.1   Receive the information in the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Report with attachments.

5.2.2   Provide feedback to staff on the next steps for Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options to inform a subsequent report to Council.

5.2.3   The Coastal-Burwood Community Board recognises the following three definitions for the description of the Estuary edge in our ward from Bridge Street to the Southshore Spit. Flood mitigation and or Erosion control measures are to be individually established for each area.

(a)          Bridge Street to the Jetty

(b)          Jetty to the Boardwalk

(c)          Southshore - from the northern end of the emergency works completed on 21st July 2017 to the southern end of the Spit.

3.1.2.   The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (c) Southshore:

·     Support the resolution of Council on 31 August 2017 to complete the emergency works in Southshore as outlined in option 2. of the report, but,

·    Reserve the option/ability to make further comment/resolution as to ongoing analysis of the OCEL Consultants report of December 2016 and implementation of long term flooding and erosion measures in Southshore.

5.2.4   The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (a) Bridge Street to the Jetty:

·    Recommend immediate approval of measures proposed in the report presented to Council on 31st August 2017 with respect to proposed bunding from Bridge Street to the Jetty on the existing pathway.

5.2.5   The Coastal-Burwood Community Board in relation to the area identified in point three of the resolution as (b) Jetty to the Boardwalk:

·     The area between the jetty and the board walk be restored/repaired to pre earthquake condition. (This recognises the preference of local residents, is supported by a submission to the South Brighton Domain Management hearings from the South Brighton Residents Association in 2013 and recently by the Southshore Residents Association whose members also regularly enjoy the use of this recreational reserve).

Noting that this resolution recognises that:

·    The Pleasant Point Yacht Club, South New Brighton Tennis Club, South Brighton Holiday Park and  Walking Track (CCC Assets)

·    That approximately 350m of the gabion/Reno mattress currently in place requires minimal to little repair

·    That 300m of the gabion/reno mattress will require significant repair.

·    Notes significantly that in the context of the Estuary edge in the Coastal-Burwood Ward that natural/salt marsh edge accounts for 80% of the estuary edge and this area is quite a small portion of the edge and is highly valued as a recreation asset

·    Repair of the existing gabion/Reno mattress is the preferred option and the Board strongly reinforces the notion that this repair does not propose any extension into salt marsh or current natural edge.

·    There is major opposition in the community to creating bunding some distance inland. As such the Board notes that the Gabion edge restoration is preferred and any bunding if required, should be placed closer to the repaired edges where the gabions/Reno mattressing will provide flood and erosion protection. Bunding (if required) can be close to the edge but distant enough to be unaffected by erosion as is the case in Southshore and the proposed bunding in the Bridge Street to the jetty area.

5.3       This report responds to the third Council resolution focusing on the area from Bridge Street to the jetty, and the jetty to the boardwalk in Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park.  The report does not revisit works as approved by the Council resolution (CNCL/2017/00210). 

Bridge Street to the jetty

5.4       The Board support the proposed extension of the bund from Bridge Street to the jetty, as proposed in option 1 of the 24 August 2017 Council report.  However, the Board reported verbally a preference for the alignment to follow the existing Estuary Walkway rather than a new alignment further inland.  The latter alignment was proposed in option 1 in the 24 August 2017 Council report. 

5.5       The South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan states that some sections of the existing Estuary Walkway through Bridge Reserve currently get flooded during king tides.  As a result, realignment of the track is proposed to avoid flooding. 

5.6       Placing a bund closer to the estuary edge may require erosion protection for the structure.  Alignment of the bund will be considered through the detailed design stage.  It may be possible to align the bund nearer to the existing path, in accordance with the desire of the Board, whilst not compromising the bund from an erosion perspective and keeping in general accordance with the park development plan.

5.7       Board members expressed verbally the importance of the existing vegetation in Bridge Reserve that had been planted by volunteers.  Further topographic survey is required to identify the location of vegetation.  Minimisation of vegetative losses will be considered through the optimisation of the horizontal alignment of the bund during the next design stages.

Jetty to the boardwalk

5.8       The main concern raised by the Board in the area from the jetty to the boardwalk relates to erosion of the estuary edge, which influences where a bund would be located within South New Brighton Park.  The Board resolution seeks that the area be restored/repaired to pre-earthquake condition.  In some instances this may involve repair of existing hard protection structures such as the gabion/Reno Mattress structures that currently support the estuary edge.  However in some places there is some distance between the current estuary edge and the Reno Mattress as a result of erosion or separation, which is likely to require reclamation to restore to pre-earthquake condition. 

5.9       Repair/reinstatement of the gabion/Reno Mattress will occur in the Coastal Marine Area.  It is likely that this will require a coastal permit under the Canterbury Regional Coastal Environment Plan.  This will depend on the extent of repair works to existing structures and if they have previously been authorised.  Any new structures or reclamation would require a coastal permit. 

5.10    With the reinstatement of the estuary edge the Board prefer that any bund for tidal flooding be placed closer to the protected estuary edge.  The pre-earthquake estuary edge may have also provided some protection in terms of tidal flooding as higher sections of bank may have since been eroded.

Strategic policy context

5.11    The 24 August 2017 Council report outlined the planning and consenting requirements to enable tidal flood management works within the estuarine environs.  This advice remains relevant but it did not envisage undertaking reclamation or restoration of the estuary edge to pre-earthquake condition.  Additional advice is provided below on the strategic policy context. 

South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan 2014

5.12    The South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan applies to three reserves along the estuary edge; Blighs Garden (outside of the area of this report), Bridge Reserve, and South New Brighton Park. 

5.13    Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park are both classified Recreation Reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 for the purpose of “providing areas for the recreation and sporting activities and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public, and for the protection of the natural environment and beauty of the countryside, with emphasis on the retention of open spaces and on outdoor recreational activities, including recreational tracks in the countryside” (s17(i)).

5.14    The objectives and policies of the Management Plan recognise and aim to balance the multiple values of the reserves.  The plan aims to: protect and restore the ecological values of the estuary edge; protect and restore natural defences to improve the resilience of the estuary edge to the effects of climate change and erosion; recognise and restore tangata whenua cultural values including mahinga kai; protect and enhance landscape values; and encourage recreation activities compatible with the unique estuary edge environment.

5.15    The role of the reserves in providing for flood protection is supported.  The Management Plan allows for the construction of flood management structures.  It requires any stopbanks to be located a distance away from the estuary edge so they can be sustained without concern for erosion management in the medium term, to allow for a full estuarine to forest vegetation sequence, and to allow space for natural environmental processes to occur.

5.16    The Management Plan was prepared under the Reserves Act 1977 and approved by a Hearings Panel in 2014. The Council is required to comply with it.  Any works contrary to the current plan would require a review of the plan.  The process to review the plan includes:

5.16.1 Public notification inviting suggestions from organisations and the public (2 months)

5.16.2 Preparation and Council approval of amendments to the management plan (2-3 months)

5.16.3 Public notification and consultation (2 months minimum)

5.16.4 A hearing panel process (2 months)

South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan 2014

5.17    The Development Plan contains landscape concept plans for each of the three reserves and a prioritised list of development projects.  The plan anticipated a possible stopbank and presents an indicative alignment with a new walkway on top.  The stopbank is located away from the estuary edge, consistent with the objectives and policies of the Management Plan.  There is some flexibility within the plan for the final location of any bund.  The alignment of a bund would need to be optimised in consideration of existing topography, erosion risks, existing vegetation and realising opportunities to enhance other values (or minimise the impacts on them).

5.18    The Development Plan was approved by the Burwood Pegasus Community Board in 2014. The Council is required to comply with it.  Any works contrary to the current plan would require a new plan, and potentially modifications to the Management Plan.

5.19    Preparation of a new Development Plan can occur in parallel with the Management Plan utilising the same consultation processes but a different approval process. Community Boards have delegated authority to approve landscape plans provided they are within the policy and budget set by the Council.

5.20    The process to renew both plans would take between 9 and 12 months prior to construction starting.  Any construction of works could not commence until at least the 2018/19 construction period, pending relevant resource consents.  It would also be subject to funding.

5.21    Current park operations are undertaken in accordance with the management and development plans allowing the estuary edge to gradually respond to the changing environmental conditions and find its new equilibrium. Additional funding is required to expedite full implementation of the plans.

The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

5.22    As noted in the 24 August 2017 Council report, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) will be a relevant consideration for any resource consent, as both the Canterbury Regional Coastal Environment Plan and the Christchurch District Plan do not fully give effect to the NZCPS.  While the NZCPS must be read as a whole document, the most relevant parts are summarised below:

5.22.1 Objective 5 seeks to ensure coastal hazard risks take account of climate change and are managed by protecting or restoring natural defences to coastal hazards. 

5.22.2 Policy 24 Identification of coastal hazards: outlines the matters to have regard to in identifying areas in the coastal environment potentially affected by coastal hazards. 

5.22.3 Policy 25 Subdivision, use, and development in areas of coastal hazard risk: discourages hard protection structures and promotes the use of alternatives to them for areas potentially affected by coastal hazards over at least the next 100 years.  It also seeks to avoid increasing the risk of social, environmental and economic harm from coastal hazards. 

5.22.4 Policy 26 Natural defences against coastal hazards:  provides where appropriate for the protection, restoration or enhancement of natural defences that protect coastal land uses.  Natural defences include beaches, estuaries, wetlands, intertidal areas and coastal vegetation. 

5.22.5 Policy 27 Strategies for protecting significant existing development from coastal hazard risk: directs that strategies should be assessed to include promoting and identifying long-term sustainable risk reduction approaches including the relocation or removal of existing development or structures at risk.  The policy recognises that hard protection structures may be the only practical means to protect existing infrastructure of national or regional importance.  Policy 27 seeks a focus on approaches to risk management that reduce the need for hard protection structures and similar engineering interventions, evaluate the likely costs and benefits.  If hard protection structures are considered to be necessary, Policy 27 seeks to ensure they are designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment. 

5.23    Restoration/reinstatement of the estuary edge, as proposed by the Board, is inconsistent with the direction of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan. 

Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy

5.24    The erosion of the estuary edge and options to address this over the short, medium and longer term will be considered as part of the Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration Strategy.  This will take into account the effects of climate change.  The approach directed by the NZCPS will be a key consideration in the development of a regeneration strategy. 

5.25    The regeneration strategy project provides the opportunity to consider all options to address erosion of the wider extent of the estuary edge – from hard protection structures as proposed by the Board through to a naturalised estuary edge as promoted by the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan.  All these options will need to be explored from all aspects, including technical, economic and cultural.  Considering the wider estuary, estuary edge and existing development in South New Brighton and Southshore will provide the context to look at longer term options as well as short and medium term. 

5.26    A hard engineering approach to coastal erosion in this area is not considered a short term or an adaptive approach.  The works are likely to necessitate significant construction works in the Coastal Marine Area, lengthy and uncertain planning consenting processes and significant costs.  Hard engineering would be difficult to modify in the future without large additional investment.

6.   Option 1 –  Extend bund and manage estuary edge as per South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option involves construction of a bund north of the boardwalk up to Bridge Street, where it would join with the temporary stopbank currently in the design phase.  The alignment of the bund will be set back from the estuary edge as indicated in the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan.  This alignment is consistent with Option 1 in the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options report (24 August 2017) (pink line in Figure 1).  As discussed above, the final alignment would be considered through the next design phases.  It may be possible to locate the bund closer to the estuary edge, in accordance with the Community Board feedback, without compromising the bund (from an erosion perspective) to minimise other impacts but still be in keeping with the reserve development plan.

Figure 1 Proposed Extension of Emergency Bund in Parts of South New Brighton Park and Bridge Reserve

6.2       This option would see the emergency bund span low points in the existing topography within South New Brighton Park and Bridge Reserve.  This would provide a reduction in risk of tidal flooding for properties within South New Brighton and Southshore.  Extending the bund would offer a uniform approach to tidal flood risk that would be consistent with upstream areas of the Ōtākaro / Avon River.  Construction of a bund with a design life of up to 20 years will allow time for long term planning processes to develop.  Tree removals will be required to enable the works.

6.3       Approximately 19 houses with floor levels estimated below 10.8 m RL are within the area benefited by the proposed works.  This does not represent the total numbers of houses and properties at risk as it is unlikely that there would be sufficient volume of tidal inundation overtopping the estuary edge to fill to this level.  Approximately 140 properties also have average ground level below 10.8 m RL.  Detailed hydraulic modelling will be required to provide greater accuracy in the estimate of homes and properties at risk.  It is likely that the numbers provided above are an over estimate of the number of houses and properties at risk.


 

6.4       Option 1 also includes the monitoring and management of estuary edge erosion to varying degrees solely for the purpose of managing risk to the bund.  This includes retaining the trees along the estuary edge to optimise their ecological value as roosting sites and any bank stability/protection they provide with removal when they have a negative impact or are dangerous, realigning the Estuary Walkway where necessary, planting areas as they stabilise.  This approach is currently being applied by the parks operations team as current levels of funding only permit this minimal approach.

6.5       With further funding a more active approach to delivery of the management plan and development plan objectives could be adopted (not currently proposed).  This could include a soft engineering approach with the objective of enhancing natural defences and resilience.  Additional funding for this activity will be sought through the long term plan process.  The approach to long term erosion management will be considered within the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

6.6       The approach to rainfall flooding would include construction of stop logs to allow drain down of stormwater ponding behind the bund, construction of new manholes where existing sumps/manholes aren’t suitable for temporary pumping and construction of temporary pump lay down areas with suitable access tracks.

6.7       The total budget for this option has been estimated at approximately $1.0 million +/- 40%.  The confidence in the cost estimates will increase as the design develops.

Significance

6.8       The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

6.9       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted this report.  Consultation with the community may be required to inform resource consent applications for the proposed works.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.10    This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  Engagement with Ngāi Tahu will be required to inform resource consenting of the proposed tidal flooding management works.  The area is of high cultural significance.  Engagement with Ngāi Tahu on the long term erosion issues would be undertaken through the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy as they are strategic partners within the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016. 

Community Views and Preferences

6.11    Park users are specifically affected by this option due to modifications to the estuary edge.  Their views were sought during preparation and approval processes for the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan and a diverse range of values and views were presented.  A hearings panel and the Board approved the Management Plan and the Development Plan.

6.12    Recent deputations have been made to the Board from the local tennis and yachting clubs as well as the operators of the camping ground.  These deputations raised concerns about the impacts of estuary edge erosion and tidal flooding on the character and functionality of the park as well as impacts specific to their individual uses (e.g. flooding of existing or future buildings).


 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.13    This option is largely consistent with Council's Plans and Policies, and Community Outcomes, including the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan.  This option may be inconsistent in part with some policies in the Christchurch District Plan.  These do not require amendment as the option will be assessed against the provisions of the plan through the resource consent process under the Resource Management Act.

Financial Implications

6.14    Cost of Implementation – The construction cost for this option has been estimated at $0.8 million.  A budgetary provision of $1.0 million +/- 40% which provides for project contingency, design costs and project management / support costs.  Costs for contaminated land, access and restoration to private land, and ground improvement is not provided for within the budget.  Costs will be re-estimated at the completion of detailed design.

6.15    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Ongoing monitoring and management of the Estuary edge is proposed in this option.  This will require ongoing funding but will be dependent on the frequency and severity of storm events.  As such ongoing costs are reactive in nature and very difficult to quantify.

6.16    Funding source – Capital costs will be met from within the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  This project is not currently specified as a line item within the Long Term Plan.  Some budgetary balancing will be required in order to fund the capital investment.  It is proposed to utilise budget from the Avon River Stopbanks Preliminary Design project and the Waterways Earthquake Repair project to fund these works.  A cost share agreement of some description with Land Information New Zealand may be possible.

6.17    Ongoing monitoring and maintenance costs will fall within existing operational budgets for park, roading and land drainage maintenance. 

Legal Implications

6.18    Resource consents will be required to enact the works from Council.  A determination on any works within the Coastal Marine Area will be sought from Canterbury Regional Council.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.19    There are a number of risks associated with enacting these works from both engineering and social standpoints.

6.20    Risk of flooding caused by system failure, overtopping during events that are larger than the design capacity, storm event erosion or operational deficiency (e.g. the stop logs are not removed) remains.  This will result in flooding of streets, properties and potentially some homes.

6.20.1 Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the network is fundamental to ongoing flood management.  Response plans are already in place and will need to be continued.

6.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the proposed system.

6.21    There is a risk that long term planning is not resolved (e.g. plans are not agreed or funding is not available) within the design life of the works. 

6.21.1 Treatment: Ongoing maintenance of the works will be required and a detailed risk assessment will be needed if the temporary works are to remain beyond 20 years.

6.21.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the proposed design life.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - There are no dependencies with starting the design and consenting work.  Resource consents will be required prior to starting physical works.

6.23    Implementation timeframe – Delivery of the project will be dependent on the determination of the resource consent level of notification.  It is expected that the project can be completed this financial year if resource consents are obtained without delays.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·     Bund is able to be delivered in the short term

·     Bund is adaptive as it can easily be modified in the future

·     Consistency with the Council resolution of 3 August 2017 (CNCL/2017/00176)

·     Reduces the risk of tidal flooding in extreme events to up to an estimated 141 properties and 19 homes

·     Consistency with the 2014 South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

·     Provides a consistent treatment of flooding risks to all properties on Brighton Spit

·     Allows long term options for both tidal flooding and coastal erosion (and the effects of climate change) to be considered in wider context of the Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration strategy

·     Allows for ecological restoration of estuary edge including estuarine to forest vegetation sequence and habitat

·     Allows for enhancement of natural landscape values of the estuary edge

·     Provides for cultural values and mahinga kai opportunities on the estuary edge

·     Continues to provide for recreation in unique estuary setting

·     Does not preclude more extensive estuary edge treatment in the future, if desired

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The budget has been estimated at approximately $1.0 million +/- 40%

·     Greater cost than the Do Nothing Short Term Option but less than the estimated cost of the Extend Bund along Estuary Edge Option

·     Reliant on ongoing maintenance and wet weather responses

7.   Option 2 – Extend bund and restore/reclaim estuary edge as per Coastal-Burwood Community Board resolution

Option Description

7.1       This option involves:

i.      Constructing a bund along the existing alignment of the Estuary Walkway from Bridge Street to the boardwalk; and

ii.     Restoring/reclaiming the hard engineering along the estuary edge from the jetty to the boardwalk in South New Brighton Park to its original, pre-earthquake alignment.

7.2       It is possible that the bund would require erosion protection along the seaward face as the alignment along the estuary edge would expose the bund to wave action.  This would not be necessary if the bund is constructed along the alignment proposed in Option 1.


 

7.3       Overall, this option is not considered to be a short term option as it is not easy to implement within a short time period (as discussed above).  As such, it does not fit within the original Council resolution (CAPL/2017/00022 passed on 20 June 2017) to identify options for short-term measures to address concerns raised by the community.  However, this option is presented within this report to highlight the merits and detriments of the community board proposal.

7.4       This option would be best considered within the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy for the area due to its long-term nature.

7.5       This option would provide the same benefits in flood reduction as Option 1.  The approach to estuary edge treatment is not considered to be an adaptable option as it will be costly to install and modify in the future.  As shown by the performance of the existing Reno Mattress during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence it is also unlikely to be a resilient option without significant additional engineering.  A significant number of trees would need to be removed along the estuary edge to facilitate the construction of an earthquake resilient structure.

7.6       Considerable further design work would be required to inform decision making on this option.

Significance

7.7       The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.8       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted this report.  Consultation with the community may be required to inform resource consent applications should this option be pursued.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.9       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  Engagement with Ngāi Tahu would be required to inform resource consents and modifications to the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan.

Community Views and Preferences

7.10    The community board members reported that they have informally canvassed the views of park users and that the users generally support this option.  Deputations to the community board from the Mt Pleasant Yacht Club supported hard engineering of the estuary edge.  A deputation from the Ihutai Estuary Trust to the Council supported a naturalised edge.  Submissions received during the 2014 hearing of the reserve management and development plans highlighted that there are a range of views held within the community on the preferred treatment of the estuary edge.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.11.1 Inconsistency – Inconsistent with 2014 South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan.

7.11.2 Reason for inconsistency – Inconsistent with objectives and policies contained in sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.5 of the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan 2014. Inconsistent with the Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park Concept Plans in the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan 2014.

7.11.3 Amendment necessary – A review of both the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and the Development Plan would be required.

Financial Implications

7.12    Cost of Implementation – Indicative cost estimates associated with this option have been developed.  Significant investigative and design effort would be required to provide robust cost estimates.  The costs for this option could total in the order of $2 M, exceeding Option 1 by approximately $1 M.

7.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Ongoing costs have not been investigated at this stage.

7.14    Funding source – Funding would be required from both the Parks Unit and the Land Drainage Recovery Programme as estuary edge reinstatement is considered outside of the scope of the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.  There is no funding currently allocated within the Parks budget for reinstatement of the estuary edge within the park.  New funding would be required to support this activity.

Legal Implications

7.15    Resource consents and modifications to the park plans would be required to support this option.  Engagement with ECan would be required on consenting of the works but also on roles and responsibilities in relation to erosion management.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.16    There are two key risks with this option: securing resource consents and failure of the edge protection with rising sea levels

7.17    Risk of failing to secure resource consents caused by opposition by submitters or consenting authorities.  This will result in inability to deliver the option.

7.17.1 Treatment: ongoing design and consultation with the public and consenting authorities

7.17.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is very high given the conflict of this option with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

7.18    Risk of the erosion protection failing caused by wave action during extreme events.  This will result in engineering failure of the option and potential failure of the bund giving rise to flooding.

7.18.1 Treatment: design of the reno mattress and seaward face of the bund to consider extreme storm events.

7.18.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is medium given sufficient engineering design but noting the conflict in design principle with a short term option.

Implementation

7.19    Implementation dependencies - Modifications to the park plans and resource consents would be required prior to construction.  Reclamation of land within the Coastal Marine Area would require a resource consent from Environment Canterbury.

7.20    Implementation timeframe – Given the nature of the works it is highly likely that a prolonged period for securing consents for the works would be required. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.21    The advantages of this option include:

·     Supported by the Coastal-Burwood Community Board


 

7.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Requires review of the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan

·     Long implementation timeline

·     Potential to cost up to $1 M more than the preferred option (Option 1)

·     It is not adaptable or resilient

8.   Option 3 – Do nothing new in the short term

Option Description

8.1       This option involves undertaking no further floodplain management works from Bridge Street to the boardwalk in the short term.  This approach would vary from the Council resolution of 3 August 2017 (CNCL/2017/00176) following the flood event of 21 July 2017 to:

8.1.1   Seek urgent approval for resource consent to continue and complete to a robust standard the bund work created on Friday 21 July to Sunday 23 July 2017 and to extend this work as necessary to prevent seawater inundation along the estuary side of Southshore and the South Brighton Domain to the jetty.

8.2       The current level of estuary edge erosion management would continue through parks operational processes.  The longer term management of estuary edge erosion and the effects of climate change would be considered through the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

Significance

8.3       The level of significance of this option is medium and is consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.4       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted this report. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.6       Some of the community’s views have been expressed through their local residents association, within the petition and other correspondence received by Council.  These concerns include tidal flooding and erosion of the estuary edge.  There are a range of views within the community on the various values of the area.

8.7       Community expectation of works has been raised through the Council resolution of 3 August 2017.  Deciding not to proceed with works at this stage may raise concerns within the community, particularly with park users, occupants of the camp ground and with local sports clubs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation - none

8.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

8.11    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

8.12    None.

Risks and Mitigations   

8.13    There is a risk of opposition to this option being raised by members of the community.

8.14    Risk of local opposition to this option.  This will result in adverse reputational outcomes.

8.14.1 Treatment: rapid progression of long term planning processes and provision of information on the planning process to the local community.

8.14.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is high given recent media coverage on concerns raised by residents.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies  - none

8.16    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·     Lowest cost

·     Allows time for long term plans to be developed through the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy project

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Contrary to earlier Council resolution to proceed with the works as far north as the jetty (CNCL/2017/00176)

·     The risk of tidal flooding in extreme events remains for up to an estimated 141 properties and 19 homes

·     Potential to raise concerns with the community

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Thomas Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Kelly Hansen - Senior Recreation Planner Parks

Debbie Hogan - Team Leader City Planning

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Richard Osborne - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

Report from Audit and Risk Management Committee  – 3 October 2017

 

18.    2017 Annual Report

Reference:

17/1186252

Contact:

Patricia Christie

patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

 

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee note to Council that it:

1.         Has reviewed the draft 2017 Annual Report and notes that it will receive a modified audit report in respect of the 2016 comparative numbers on the basis that:

a.         as a result of the 2010/11 earthquakes the Council was still unable to value all of its property, plant and equipment or identify all repair components within its work in progress in full accordance with current accounting standards; and

b.         the Council’s treatment of the $55million of SCIRT cost, expensed in 2015.

2.         Has reviewed the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2017 Annual Report and recommends that this is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

3.         Has reviewed the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand along with the internal management sign off matrix and recommends that the Letter of Representation is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

4.         Has reviewed the draft Summary Annual Report and notes that this will be finalised by the General Manager Finance and Commercial after the adoption of the Annual Report by Council.

5.         Notes that this report will be considered by Council on its public agenda once approved by the Committee for adoption.

 

That the Audit and Risk Committee recommends to Council that it:

6.         Approves the Annual Report for adoption.

7.         Receive the Independent Auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

8.         Adopt the Annual Report with the inclusion of the Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

9.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to make changes as required by Audit New Zealand and/or to correct errors in publishing the Annual Report.

10.       Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to finalise the Summary Annual Report on the basis of the 2017 Annual Report and to make changes as required for publishing.

11.       Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to produce and publish the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report within the statutory timeframes.

 


 

 

2.  Audit and Risk Management Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

The Audit and Risk Management Committee notes to the Council that it:

1.         Has reviewed the draft 2017 Annual Report  and made recommendations to Management, and notes that it will receive a modified audit report in respect of the 2016 comparative numbers on the basis that:

a.         as a result of the 2010/11 earthquakes the Council was still unable to value all of its property, plant and equipment or identify all repair components within its work in progress in full accordance with current accounting standards; and

b.         the Council’s treatment of the $55million of SCIRT cost, expensed in 2015.

2.         Has reviewed the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2017 Annual Report and recommends that this is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

3.         Has reviewed the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand along with the internal management sign off matrix and recommends that the Letter of Representation is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

4.         Has reviewed the draft Summary Annual Report and notes that this will be finalised by the General Manager Finance and Commercial after the adoption of the Annual Report by Council.

5.         Noted that this report will be considered by the Council on its public agenda once approved by the Committee for adoption.

 

The Audit and Risk Committee recommends to the Council that it:

6.         Approve the Annual Report for adoption subject to completion by staff, of matters discussed at the Audit and Risk Management Committee Meeting.

7.         Receive the Independent Auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

8.         Adopt the Annual Report with the inclusion of the Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

9.         Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to make changes as required by Audit New Zealand and/or to correct errors in publishing the Annual Report.

10.       Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to finalise the Summary Annual Report on the basis of the 2017 Annual Report and to make changes as required for publishing.

11.       Authorise the General Manager Finance and Commercial to produce and publish the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report within the statutory timeframes.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

2017 Annual Report

128

 

No.

Title

Page

a

2017 Annual Report

136

b

Draft Summary Annual Report 2017

393

c

Draft Audit Zealand Audit Report 2017

420

d

Letter of Representation - 2017

426

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

2017 Annual Report

Reference:

17/1016786

Contact:

Patricia Christie

patricia.christie@ccc.govt.nz

941 8113

Confidentiality

Section under the Act:

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

Sub-clause and Reason:

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

Plain English Reason:

To allow the Committee to consider the issues contained in the Annual Report prior to it being passed to Council for adoption

Report can be released:

Following approval by the Audit and Risk Management Committee that it recommend that the Annual Report be adopted by Council

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Audit and Risk Management Committee to recommend to Council that it adopt the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to meet the requirements of section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002. Under section 98, each local authority must prepare and adopt an annual report in respect of each financial year. Each annual report must be completed and adopted by resolution within four months after the end of the financial year to which it relates, and within one month from adoption, the local authority must make publicly available:

·    its annual report; and

·     a summary of the information contained in its annual report.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the impact of the decision to adopt the annual report on the ratepayer.


 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Audit and Risk Management Committee note to Council that it:

1.         Has reviewed the draft 2017 Annual Report and notes that it will receive a modified audit report in respect of the 2016 comparative numbers on the basis that:

a.         as a result of the 2010/11 earthquakes the Council was still unable to value all of its property, plant and equipment or identify all repair components within its work in progress in full accordance with current accounting standards; and

b.         the Council’s treatment of the $55million of SCIRT cost, expensed in 2015 .

2.         Has reviewed the Statement of Compliance on page 8 of the 2017 Annual Report and recommends that this is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

3.         Has reviewed the Letter of Representation required by Audit New Zealand along with the internal management sign off matrix and recommends that the Letter of Representation is signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

4.         Has reviewed the draft Summary Annual Report and notes that this will be finalised by the General Manager Finance and Commercial after the adoption of the Annual Report by Council.

5.         Notes that this report will be considered by Council on its public agenda once approved by the Committee for adoption.

 

That the Audit and Risk Committee recommends to Council that it:

6.         Approves the Annual Report for adoption.

7.         Receive the Independent Auditor's report for the year ended 30 June 2017

8.         Adopt the Annual Report with the inclusion of the Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

9.         Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to make changes as required by Audit New Zealand and/or to correct errors in publishing the Annual Report.

10.       Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to finalise the Summary Annual Report on the basis of the 2017 Annual Report and to make changes as required for publishing.

11.       Authorises the General Manager Finance and Commercial to produce and publish the Annual Report and Summary Annual Report within the statutory timeframes.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Attached as Attachment A is the Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017, and Attachment B the draft Summary Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2017.

4.2       Audit New Zealand has examined the financial statements and accompanying reports of the Group and have received clearance from the Office of the Auditor General.

4.3       Audit New Zealand has provided the Committee with a draft audit report which is included in the separate report from Audit New Zealand to the Committee.

4.4       Audit New Zealand requires a Letter of Representation signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive. A draft of this letter is included in the separate report Audit New Zealand to the Committee. 

4.5       A representative of Audit New Zealand will be in attendance at the Committee meeting to answer any questions regarding the annual report, explain the audit opinion they will be providing and the representations required.

 

5.   Context/Background

Operating Results

5.1       This result differs from the financial result reported in the Performance Report received by the Council on 28 September 2017, as the Annual Report includes year-end adjustments for items such as revaluations, accruals and impairments.

5.2       The Council had an operating surplus of $187 million compared to a planned surplus of $178 million and a prior year surplus of $367 million.

5.2.1   Operating income was $166 million higher than planned as:

·     Earthquake and NZTA subsidies were $124 million higher due to more SCIRT and other rebuild projects being completed during the year;

·     Vested assets were $30 million higher and development and financial contributions $21 million higher than planned due to more assets being received from developers and a higher than expected sub-division completion volume; and

·     Dividend revenue was $16 million higher due to unplanned dividends from Tuam and Transwaste offset by lower dividends from Christchurch City Holdings Limited (CCHL) (delay in part of the capital release programme).

5.2.2   Operating expenditure after adjusting for accounting items was $157 million higher than planned as:

·     Depreciation and amortisation costs were $16 million higher than planned due to the impact of the 2016 infrastructure revaluations.

·     $21 million of expenses relating to SCIRT projects which were planned as capital projects but were repairs needed to be expensed for accounting purposes.

·     The $28 million contribution the Crossing car park was planned as a capital project but for accounting purposes was expensed as a grant.

5.3       The Council’s total surplus was $736 million (2016: $574 million) which was $155 million higher than the planned total surplus of $581 million.

5.3.1   The Council’s surplus after tax and before revaluations was $11 million higher than planned as mentioned above in paragraph 5.2. 

5.3.2   The planned surplus included a net revaluation gain on property, plant and equipment of $403 million whereas the actual gain was $459 million.

5.3.3   The Council’s plan did not include an amount for the revaluation of subsidiaries (gain of $22 million) or the derivative hedges (gain of $67 million).

Financial Position

5.4       The Council’s statement of financial position shows a strong position with total assets of $12.8 billion and net assets of $10.6 billion. Total debt is $1.8 billion.

5.5       The net asset position is $353 million higher than planned, this is principally due to:

·   The revaluation of the investment in subsidiaries and unplanned loans to subsidiaries is $714 million higher than planned.

·   Cash and other financial assets are $200 million higher than planned as a result of the insurance settlement in 2016 and prefunding 2017 debt maturities.

·   Property, plant and equipment is $89 million lower as a result of significant capital write offs during the year. These write offs included projects planned as capital but were repairs that were expensed.

·   Derivative liabilities are $44 million higher than planned.

·   Borrowings are $450 million higher, due to unplanned borrowing for the following; on-lending to CCHL ($197 million), prefunding of debt maturities later in 2017 (143 million), from group entities ($33 million) and external borrowing ($79 million).

Asset Revaluation

5.6       The Council undertook revaluations of six asset classes in 2016. These are detailed below:

·   Roading (continuation of 2015 revaluation)

·   Stormwater (first post-earthquake revaluation)

·   Water Supply (three yearly revaluation)

·   Sewerage (continuation of 2015 and 2016 revaluations)

·   Marine Structures (three yearly revaluation)

·   Public Art (first post-earthquake revaluation)

5.7       Further reviews were undertaken of the roading and sewerage network assets to reduce uncertainties present in earlier valuations and to include the handover of the SCIRT assets. As a result of these revaluations all significant asset classes have now been revalued since the earthquakes.

Roading

5.8       The revaluation was undertaken by GHD, updating the 2015 revaluation also undertaken by GHD. The fair value of the Council’s roading assets (excluding land under roads) was determined using the Optimised Depreciated Replacement Cost method (ODRC).

5.9       The valuation included the following assumptions:

·   The remaining useful lives of the assets were reviewed using accepted national standards adjusted as appropriate. These adjustments were primarily in the pavement assets where the three year asset renewal programme was used to set the remaining useful life. This programme is based on the condition and criticality of the asset and is therefore an acceptable basis for reviewing remaining useful life.

·   Unit costs were reviewed and inflated from the 2015 base of national unit costs. The movement in a sample of unit costs indicated that inflation from the 2015 unit costs was appropriate.

·   Red zone assets have been optimised.

5.10    The fair value of roading assets was considered to be $2.5 billion including land under roads which was not included in the revaluation. This is an increase of approximately $255 million from the 2015 revaluation and is driven by asset additions, the review of remaining useful lives mentioned above, and improved quality of asset data held.

Stormwater, waterways and wetlands infrastructure

5.11    The revaluation was undertaken by Opus. This was the first revaluation of these assets since 30 June 2008 and used the ODRC method. A revaluation was not possible earlier due to continuing uncertainty as to the extent of damage and the cost of replacement.

5.12    The valuation resulted in a fair value is $873 million, which is an increase of $459.7 million from the 2008 valuation. This majority of this increase is due to asset additions and changes in unit rates over the past nine years.

5.13    The assumptions used in the valuation were:

·   Useful lives were reviewed as part of the valuation. Where an asset has reached the end of its expected useful life, a minimum remaining life of three years was used for assets with a base life greater than 50 years and two years minimum if the base life was less than 50 years. Where no age information was available the asset was assumed to be halfway through its useful life.

·   Unit costs were calculated with references to rates from a number of sources including the Council, previous valuations, and other local authorities.

·   Assets in the red zone areas of the city have been impaired, with pipes having a 10 – 20 year reduction in average life and a 50% reduction in fittings.

Water supply

5.14    The revaluation was undertaken by Opus using the ODRC method and was last valued in 2014 by Beca.

5.15    The fair value is $1.5 billion, which is an increase of $431.7 million from the 2014 valuation. The main reasons for this increase are additional assets capitalised and significant increases in unit rates.

5.16    The assumptions used in the valuation were:

·   Construction costs were calculated with reference to the unit rates to reproduce the assets with modern equivalents but with pipes of the same diameter.

·   Unit rates include all incidental costs such project and reinstatement costs. Unit rates have been reviewed for the local market and include the increasing impacts of brownfield costs, contractor overheads and traffic management.

·   Useful lives are determined based on New Zealand Infrastructure Asset Valuation and Depreciation Guidelines 2006 and the Council’s current estimates of service life. Where an asset has reached the end of its expected useful life, a minimum remaining life of three years was used for assets with a base life greater than 50 years and two years minimum if the base life was less than 50 years.

·   Assets in the red zone areas of the city which are not being used to supply water to the surrounding green zone areas were removed.

Sewerage assets

5.17    Sewerage / wastewater assets have been revalued at 30 June 2015, 2016 and 2017 by GHD using the ODRC method. The valuation has been reviewed every year to reduce the valuation uncertainties associated with the significant post-earthquake repair and replacement programme for wastewater assets.

5.18    The 2017 fair value is $2.2 billion, which is an increase of $216 million on the 2016 valuation. This increase is mainly due to additional assets capitalised as the unit rates remained relatively steady between the 2016 and 2017 valuations.

5.19    The assumptions used in the 2017 valuation are:

·   Replacement costs have been calculated based on the cost of modern equivalent assets. Cost data is based on rates from recent Council capital projects, a GHD national database from other local authority capital projects, and supplier provided rates where necessary.

·   Allowance has been made for spare capacity of the assets.

·   The remaining useful life is based on standard economic life for each element type with adjustments for the age and condition of each element. The remaining useful life of pipes laid before September 2010 has been adjusted to reflect expected reduced useful life as a result of the earthquake.

5.20    The revaluation valued the Christchurch Water Treatment Plant (CWTP) on an as repaired basis. At 30 June 2017 not all the earthquake related repairs had been completed and an impairment of $19 million remains.

Marine Structures

5.21    The revaluation was undertaken by Beca Projects NZ Limited using the ODRC method. The valuation resulted in a fair value of $17.4 million, which is an increase of $0.3 million from the 2014 valuation. The most significant assets in this asset class are the New Brighton Pier and Akaroa Wharf.

Public Art

5.22    The revaluation was undertaken by Art + Object Limited using market value. This is the first revaluation since 30 June 2009 and was made possible by splitting these assets from the others in the Heritage asset class which are not yet able to be revalued.

5.23    The revaluation resulted in a fair value of $13.7 million, compared to a total of $5.9 million for the same asset group in 2009. The majority of the increase results from art works purchased since the last revaluation.

Other asset classes

5.24    Council staff have considered whether there are any indications that the asset classes which have not been revalued in 2017 have been subject to a material positive or negative change in value. There is no indication of a material change in value.

Asset impairment

5.25    Since 2012 the Council has recognised that its infrastructure assets and buildings and facilities have been impaired. The 2017 revaluations of the water supply and stormwater network assets have taken into account the current condition of these assets. As a consequence the impairment provisions previously taken have been reversed ($9 million for water supply and $52 million for stormwater).

5.26    At 30 June 2017 the only remaining infrastructure impairment related to the CWTP as discussed in 5.20 above.

5.27    Buildings and facilities were last revalued in 2015 as if repaired with provision being made for those which were damaged. The impairment was based on the estimated cost to repair the earthquake damage. At 30 June 2017 the impairment was $87 million a decrease of $1 million from 2016. The decrease is the result of buildings being demolished or sold. The remaining impairment will be reversed when they are next revalued or if, when the repair work is undertaken, it is treated as an expense.

Work in progress and adjustment to 2016 comparative numbers

5.28    The work in progress balance at 30 June 2017 was $197 million (2016: $846 million, 2015: $981 million and 2014: $1.3 billion). All SCIRT work has been capitalised to the appropriate asset classes or treated as an operating expense where it has been considered a repair.

5.28.1 Projects totalling $80 million were identified as repairs when the projects were handed over to Council. These have been expensed and a prior period adjustment has been used to reflect $59 million of these costs which related to projects constructed in the 2015/16 and earlier financial years.

Audit opinion

5.29    The Council’s inability to revalue its infrastructure assets has been one of the major factors in the modified audit opinions received for the last six years.

5.30    The large number of revaluations undertaken in 2017 together with the handover of all the SCIRT projects to Council have reduced the uncertainties that were present for the past five years.

5.31    The draft audit report provided by Audit New Zealand in its separate report provides an clean opinion in relation to the 30 June 2017 financial statements. However, as the 2016 Annual report received a modified audit opinion the modifications are still relevant in relation to the 2016 comparative numbers.

5.32    Audit New Zealand will be present at the Committee meeting and will be able to answer questions on the audit report they will be issuing.

Financial Ratios and benchmarks

5.33    The Council has five financial ratios which form a key part of its financial risk management strategy. All five actual results fell well within the policy limits.

5.34    The Council met all but one of the thirteen (including the Council’s five key financial ratios) prudential benchmarks. The operations control benchmark was not met.

5.34.1 The operations control benchmark looks at whether the Council’s net operating cash flows were equal to or greater than planned. As $56 million of payments were planned as capital but needed to be expensed this benchmark was not met in 2017.

Impact of a modified audit opinion

5.35    Section 111 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) requires the Council to comply with generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP), and section 99 of the Act requires the Annual Report to be audited.

5.36    For the reasons noted in paragraphs 5.29-5.31 above staff anticipate that Audit New Zealand will issue a clean Audit Report in respect of the 2017 numbers and a modified Audit Report in respect of the 2016 comparative numbers.

5.37    The modified audit report is not a reflection of the Council’s financial management or its ability to fund the rebuild of its infrastructure, it simply reflects the fundamental uncertainty around the actual value of its assets in 2016.

5.38    While a modified audit report must be reported by the Auditor General to Parliament, the Council must also advise its bankers and credit rating agencies. The Council’s banks and credit rating agencies have been briefed on the issues facing Council in relation to the audit report and it is considered that there are no direct consequences of the modification.

Council activities and services section

5.39    The 30 June 2017 Performance Report to Council reported the LTP performance measures that were not achieved. In the Annual Report we are required to report performance against all the LTP performance measures as well as the mandatory measures introduced by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA).

5.40    A small number of performance measures have had their results changed as a result of both internal and Audit New Zealand reviews. The results ‘On track to be achieved’, ‘Not applicable’ and ‘Not measured’ have also been added on the recommendation of Audit New Zealand. These results are more appropriate where the target is in a multi-year target or if the systems are not in place to measure the target.

5.41    Particular focus has been given by Audit New Zealand to the mandatory performance measures required by the DIA.

Letter of Representation

5.42    Audit New Zealand requires a letter of representation to be signed by the Mayor and Chief Executive. A draft of the letter is included in the separate report from Audit New Zealand.

5.43    The letter of representation includes the standard representations typically required by Audit New Zealand. Additional representations are required in relation to the modified opinion on the 2016 comparatives.

5.44    To support the signing of the letter of representation and the statement of compliance by the Mayor and Chief Executive an internal sign off process has been undertaken.

Summary Annual Report

5.45    Section 98 of the Act requires the Council to prepare and make publicly available a Summary Annual Report within one month from adopting the Annual Report. The Summary must represent, fairly and consistently the information regarding major matters dealt with in the Annual Report.

5.46    Attachment B is the current draft of the Summary Annual Report. While it is generally consistent with prior years, the summary of our financial position has been rewritten. This remains in draft and will be finalised after the adoption of the Annual Report.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

2017 Draft Annual Report

 

b 

2017 Draft Summary Annual Report (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

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

Patricia Christie - Manager External Reporting and Governance

Daisy Yu - Financial Accountant

Approved By

Diane Brandish - Head of Financial Management

Carol Bellette - General Manager Finance and Commercial (CFO)

 


Council

10 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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 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


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Council

10 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


 

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


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 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


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

19.    Chief Executive's Report September 2017

Reference:

17/1055098

Contact:

Karleen Edwards

karleen.edwards@ccc.govt.nz

941 8999

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for September 2017.

 

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Chief Executive Report to Council September 2017

434

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

10 October 2017

 

PDF CreatorPDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

20.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

10 October 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

21

Botanic Gardens Visitor Centre - New Cafe & Kiosk Lease

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

The Respondent's proposal and Council lease terms contained within this report are of a commercial and confidential nature.

Upon lease commencement.

22

Northern Arterial and QE II Drive Four-Laning - Property Disposal

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Undertake property negotiations

Following completion of settlement

23

Approval for the Re-allocation of a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

The release of this paper could prejudice ongoing comercial negotiations.

At the completion of the commercial negotiations, irrespective of the outcome

24

Transfer of Assets to Otautahi Community Housing Trust

s7(2)(i)

Conduct Negotiations

Discussion on this matter is likely to include reference to housing opportunities subject to negotiations, which will be considered in the public excluded part of the meeting.

The report will only be released after the appropriate level of consultation has been undertaken with any significant affected party.