Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 18 October 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

13 October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

C       1.       Apologies.......................................................................................................................... 4

B       2.       Declarations of Interest................................................................................................... 4

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 4

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 4

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

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

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13  

STAFF REPORTS

C       8.       Ribbonwood Place, Hillsborough - Proposed Weekday P120 Restrictions.............. 15

C       9.       McCormacks Bay Road, Mount Pleasant - Proposed Saturday Stopping Restrictions 23

C       10.     99 Main Road, Redcliffs - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions................................. 31

a       11.     Ferrymead Park Car Park.............................................................................................. 39

C       12.     Settlers Reserve - Proposed Easement........................................................................ 51

C       13.     Application to the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Aranui Eagles.............. 59

B       14.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 62 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 2 October 2017 be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

It is intended that the public forum session will be held at <Approximate Time>

OR

There will be no public forum at this meeting

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 2 October 2017

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

2 October 2017

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00159

An apology for early departure was received and accepted from Deon Swiggs.

Alexandra Davids/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                      Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00160

Community Board Decision

That the minutes (both open and public excluded) of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 be confirmed.

Deon Swiggs/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.    

7.   Silvester Street, Woolston - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions and Road Parking Improvement

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00161 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke any parking restrictions on the southeast side of Silvester Street commencing at a point 112 metres from its intersection with Wildberry Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 30 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the southeast side of Silvester Street commencing at a point 106 metres north east of its intersection with Wildberry Street and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 36 metres.

Alexandra Davids/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

12. Riccarton Ave: Proposed Small Passenger Service Vehicle Stand

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00162 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions currently located on the north side of Riccarton Avenue commencing at a point 295 metres west of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 51 metres be revoked

2.         Approve that a Bus Stop be installed on the north side of Riccarton Avenue commencing at a point 295 metres west of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

3.         Approve that a ‘Small Passenger Service Vehicle Stand’ be installed on the north side of Riccarton Avenue commencing at a point 317 metres west of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the north side of Riccarton Avenue commencing at a point 342 metres west of its intersection with Oxford Terrace and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 4 metres.

Sara Templeton/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

8.   Ferry Road near Richmond Terrace, Woolston - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00163(Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at its intersection with Richardson Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 105 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at its intersection with Richardson Terrace and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 105 metres.

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

9.   Ribbonwood Place Hillsborough - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Board Comment

The Board held a site visit on 2 October 2017 prior to the meeting.  Upon visiting Ribbonwood Place Board members discussed the possibility of time limit restrictions being installed instead of no stopping restrictions, and agreed that it would be worthwhile for staff to investigate this option.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Ribbonwood Place commencing at its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 38 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited between the hours of 8am and 5pm on the south east side of Ribbonwood Place commencing at a point 38 metres north west of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 64 metres.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00164

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south east side of Ribbonwood Place commencing at its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 38 metres.

2.         Request staff advice on installing time limited restrictions and the extent of the restriction within the Ribbonwood Place. 

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

 

10. 227 Ferry Road - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Staff Recommendation 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited adjacent to the footpath between numbers 219 and 227 Ferry Road in accordance with Attachment A.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00165

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited adjacent to the footpath between numbers 219 and 227 Ferry Road in accordance with amended Attachment B.

2.       Request staff advice on installing bollards on the footpath adjacent to Nursery Road to stop motorcycles using the shared pathway from Nursery Road to Ferry Road.

3.       Request staff advice on changing the landscape berms outside 219 – 227 Ferry Road to parking bays.

Darrell Latham/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

11. Alexandra Street, Richmond - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00166 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Alexandra Street commencing at a point 9 metres west of the prolongation of the western Pavitt Street kerb line and extending in an easterly direction for 21 metres.

Yani Johanson/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

 

13. Application to 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Sumner Pool

 

Board Comment

The Board acknowledged that the Sumner Community Pool group were providing a community service, and wanted to support fixing the leaks at the pool as there is no budgetary provision for this to be covered in the current budget.

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Declines a grant from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Sumner Community Pool towards fixing the leaks in the pool.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00167

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $4,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Sumner Community Pool towards fixing the leaks in the pool.

2.         Request staff to provide information on other support Sumner Community Pool is getting from Council. 

Yani Johanson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                               Carried

 

14. Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Sumner Community Residents Association - Sumner Neighbourhood Night

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00168(Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $500 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Sumner Community Residents’ Association towards Sumner Neighbourhood Night.

Sara Templeton/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                      Carried

 

15. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Decide how the Board will collect information on actions taken to progress issues in the 2017-19 Community Board Plan.

3.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

4.         Consider items for inclusion in the Board report to Council.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00169

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Request staff advice on the Newsline items requested by the Board that have been published.

3.         Note that the Board is committed to the December 2019 Opening of the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic facility as had been communicated to the community through the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.  The Board also note the comprehensive consultation that occurred for the Council’s Aquatic Facilities Plan. 

a.         Noting that comprehensive discussions and consultation had occurred on a possible site for the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic Facility during the development of the Council’s Aquatic Facilities Strategy, request that a report be prepared on site selection for the Linwood/Woolston Aquatic facility and that the Council delegate the site selection to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

4.         Noting that a list of projects that the Board would like staff to list on each area report,  request updates on the following projects:

a.         Former Tamaki Village site – the Board request advice on the progress of making the area into a dog park.

b.         Bromley/Woolston Air Quality – the Board request information on the collaboration of Environment Canterbury and the Council to monitor air quality in Bromley and Woolston.

c.         Linwood Village Master Plan – The Board requested staff advice on when the Board will be approving the revised Linwood Village Masterplan.

d.         Ferry Road (Woolston) Masterplan – the Board request staff advice on when the Board will be approving the revised Masterplan.

e.         Sumner Master Plan – the Board requests that staff provide an update on this.

f.          Radley Park Landscape Plan – the Board request staff advice on when the Board will receive the landscape plan that incorporates green space, Roimata Food Commons, the cycleways and the dog exercising area.

g.         Dog Park in Central City – the Board request an update on the request for Fletchers Living to provide a site for a dog park, and that other sites be explored for a Central City dog park.

h.         Greening the East - the Board request staff advice on when the Board will receive the planting plans for the Greening the East Board Project as communicated during the 2017/18 Annual Plan process.

i.          Heathcote River Flooding - the Board request staff advice on the progress of the key actions from the outcomes of the Heathcote River Flooding.

j.          Letter to Educationists – The Board requested an update on the progress of the Council, through the Mayor, of the acknowledgment of the outstanding work of Canterbury educationists during the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquakes.

k.         North Avon Road from North Parade to River Road – the Board requested staff advice on traffic calming on the section of North Avon Road from North Parade to River Road as residents and Avebury House users have highlighted a speeding issue with drivers going to the red zone sections of River Road.

Sally Buck/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

16. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    That the Homeless Collective is operating from a new location.

 

16.1    Bray Street - Street Repairs

The Board noted the Bray Street residents’ frustration at the lack of communication and progress of works on Bray Street.

The Board will write to the Chief Executive outlining the residents’ concerns relating to the lack of communication, the state of the footpath, and continuous delays of the works in Bray Street and request that the footpath be completely sealed by the current contractor.

 

   

Meeting concluded at 4.47pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 18th DAY OF October 2017.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

17/1204575

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Chris Doudney

Redcliffs Residents Association and Redcliffs School

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 18 October 2017

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Redcliffs Residents Association and Redcliffs School

14

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

8.        Ribbonwood Place, Hillsborough - Proposed Weekday P120 Restrictions

Reference:

17/1174583

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of weekday P120 parking restrictions along the east side of Ribbonwood Place in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident located adjacent to the street. It is also in response to subsequent consultation responses by local residents.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes between the hours of 8am and 5pm on the south east side of Ribbonwood Place commencing at a point 30 metres north west of its intersection with Opawa Road and extending in a north westerly direction for 33 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P120 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Deters parking all day on one side of the street for the duration of normal business hours

·     Retains the convenience of on-street parking for residents (especially visitors) for periods of up to 2 hours during a weekday and unrestricted outside business hours

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident raised concerns that their street is used intensively by workers at the nearby businesses at the light industrial area situated between Opawa Road and the railway.  Presently the street in unrestricted and for most of the working day leading to road narrowing and problems for resident turning in and out of driveways.

5.2       Consequently weekday parking restrictions have been requested, to facilitate two way traffic at all times, reduce the inconvenience upon local residents turning out of driveways yet maintain on-street parking during evenings and weekends.

5.3       Upon investigation, council staff observed during 3 separate visits that parking consistently takes place on both sides of Ribbonwood Place for the majority of its length, during the working day.  Staff observations showed that drivers needed to take particular care as the street became only wide enough for one way operation. Some vehicles were parked close to driveways which presented particular difficulties for residents with skewed driveways. The crash database was checked which showed that no crashes had occurred between 2011 and 2015.

5.4       Staff consider that it is important to maintain two way operation along the street and provide restrictions that would be unnecessary during evenings and weekends when fewer workers are present.

5.5       Consequently, the initial proposal as presented to the board combined no stopping between Opawa Road and the first property and weekday no stopping restrictions for the remainder of the south west side of Ribbonwood Place.

5.6       At the Linwood Central Heathcote board meeting on the 2nd October and further to a site visit on the same date, the board decided to approve the section no stopping restrictions, though due to informal responses received by local residents, recommended that the proposal is amended from no stopping to P120 parking restrictions. This to retain the possibility of visitors or deliveries parking on-street and visiting local residents. Therefore this report is confined to the P120 weekday restrictions.

5.7       The installation of the P120 restrictions will ensure that Ribbonwood Place maintains two way operation for the majority of the working day, has increased space for turning movements for residents and retains the convenience of short stay parking for daytime visitors to local residents and deliveries.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install Weekday P120 Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P120 parking restrictions on part of the south east side of Ribbonwood Place, in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to all tenants and property owners in Ribbonwood Place. This initial consultation was based on the weekday restrictions only. 

6.5       Whilst no emails of objections were received, there was some local concern expressed informally that the initial no stopping proposal would be inconvenient for visitors and deliveries. Consequently the proposal has been amended as per this report. Staff agree with this concern and have incorporated this amendment into the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $300 to install road markings and install three signs on existing posts.

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

6.9       Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.15    Implementation timeframe – approximately 4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Removes on-street parking to maintain space for two way traffic throughout the street

·   Reduces the inconvenience upon residents caused by inconsiderate all day parking

·   Retains the short stay convenience for visitors and deliveries to local residents

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for stopping restrictions to deter workers from blocking two way traffic and causing turning difficulties for some residents.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the transport demands of the local residents

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ribbonwood Place location plan

20

b

Ribbonwood Place P120 site plan

21

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

9.        McCormacks Bay Road, Mount Pleasant - Proposed Saturday Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1051627

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions along the south western side of McCormacks Bay Road in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve safety at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited between 9am and 1pm on Saturdays on the south west side of McCormacks Bay Road commencing from a point 14m north west of its intersection with Aratoro Place and extending in a north westerly direction for 101 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·   Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Install Saturday morning stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Deters parking on one side of the street for the duration of the Saturday market

·   Ensures that the road remains clear enough for two way traffic operation

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident raised concerns that on-street parking on Saturday mornings causes safety problems on McCormacks Bay Road. This arises when the Farmers Market takes place on the Mount Pleasant Centre car park, which is scheduled every Saturday between 9.30 and 12.30pm.

5.2       Parking takes place on both sides of the road and when this occurs, the road width available approximately adjacent to the market area, the available road width is limited to one way operation.  Consequently this leads to drivers taking risks in either direction, particularly as this section of the road includes a road bend which limits forward visibility.

5.3       Consequently Saturday no stopping restrictions have been requested, to facilitate two way traffic during this period yet maintain on-street parking during the rest of the week.

5.4       Staff observations showed that drivers do park on both sides and confirm that the safety risks occur.  There are some existing no stopping restrictions (at any time) marked by yellow markings, as shown in attachment A, which improve safety near the road bend, however, further restrictions are considered necessary during market times only.

5.5       The crash database was checked, which showed that no crashes had occurred on Saturdays between 2011 and 2015.

5.6       Staff consider that it is important to maintain two way operation along McCormacks Bay at all times.  Initially a proposal was consulted on which had restrictions on the north east side, since this would not affect residents. However, due to the responses received, the restriction has been switched to the same side as the existing no stopping restrictions.

5.7       The proposal is for restrictions to apply between 9am and 1pm, to deter drivers that either arrive early or late perhaps due to involvement with the setting up or removal of the market goods or equipment.

5.8       The installation of the Saturday stopping restrictions will ensure that McCormacks Bay Road maintains two way operation at all times.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install Saturday Stopping restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install Saturday stopping restrictions on the south west side of part of McCormacks Bay Road, in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to the tenants and property owners at 3-32 McCormacks Bay, the community centre/residents association and the squash club. 

6.5       Two requests for amendment was received, which requested that the restrictions change to be on the opposite side of the market, located as an ‘extension’ to the existing no stopping restrictions on that side.

6.6       Staff agree with these requests and have incorporated this amendment into the proposal shown in this report. The residents based at the adjacent properties have been subsequently reconsulted and no objections have been received.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $400 to install road markings and install four signs on existing power poles.

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

6.10    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Deters parking on one side of the street for the duration of the Saturday market

·   Ensures that the road remains clear enough for two way traffic operation

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for stopping restrictions to deter parking which leads to safety risks to drivers on this road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not address the safety concerns of local residents

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

McCormacks Bay Rd SSR location plan

28

b

McCormacks Bay Rd SSR site plan

29

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

10.    99 Main Road, Redcliffs - Proposed P120 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/1051644

Contact:

Barry Hayes

barry.hayes@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 8950

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of P120 parking restrictions along the north eastern side of a section Main Road in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business located adjacent to the street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to improve access for customers and visitors at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 120 minutes at any time on the north east side of Main Road commencing at a point 26 metres south east of its intersection with Augusta Street and extending in a south easterly direction for 19 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Option 1 – Install P120 parking restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking opportunities and convenience for customers and visitors to the local businesses

·     Deters all-day parking adjacent to the local businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Could lead to all day parking occurring elsewhere at an unsuitable location

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business in Redcliffs expressed concern that customers and visitors were experiencing difficulties parking close to the local retailers and that this was affecting their customers’ inclination to choose services in that area. The nearby businesses include takeaway shops, cafes, estate agents and a hair salon.

5.2       Whilst visitor parking is usually specified at 30 or 60 minutes, this request is for 120 minute parking at any time which coincides with the time required for customers at the hair salon.

5.3       Upon investigation on several site visits, council staff observed that the three spaces at this location were consistently occupied by the same vehicles for most of the day.  There are other parking opportunities in nearby though would require a longer walk of a few minutes to the centre of Redcliffs.

5.4       Given the nearby commercial land uses, staff consider that the request is reasonable and would be in the interests of visitors and customers who may also wish to visit more than one retailer or business in Redcliffs town centre.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Install P120 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install P120 restrictions adjacent to 99 Main Road in Redcliffs, in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan have been issued to tenants and property owners in the 10 nearest properties, the Redcliffs Residents association and Redcliffs New World. 

6.5       No letters of objection were received. One letter of support was received from the owner/operator at New World.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.7       Staff have consulted with the project manager for the Main Road masterplan. Project M2 of this relates to the Redcliffs Village Centre streetscape enhancement. This is currently at very early stages of scheme development and this proposal would not compromise any committed proposals at this stage.

6.8       It is considered likely that it would be consistent with the expected objectives of enhancing the local environment for local businesses and their visitors.

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation - $300 to install road markings and install two signs on one new pole and a power pole.

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

6.11    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

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

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.17    Implementation timeframe – approximately 4 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides a higher turnover of parking opportunities and convenience for customers and visitors to the local businesses

·     Deters all-day parking adjacent to the local businesses

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Could lead to all day parking occurring elsewhere at an unsuitable location

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing unrestricted parking

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request for parking restrictions to deter all day parking.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $0

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    Not applicable

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the transport demands of the local businesses

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

99 Main Road P120 site plan

36

b

99 Main Road P120 location plan

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

11.    Ferrymead Park Car Park

Reference:

17/832660

Contact:

Kelly Hansen

kelly.hansen@ccc.govt.nz

03941 8142

 

 

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 decide on their preferred option for construction of a car park in Ferrymead Park, on Ferrymead Park Drive opposite Ferrymead Heritage Park.

1.2       The Council owned land comprises Section 1 SO 303513 (Identifier 104044) and is referred to as 81 Ferrymead Park Drive.

1.3       This report is staff generated to address an outstanding obligation requiring the Council to provide an overflow car park adjacent to the Ferrymead Heritage Park as prescribed by a Deed of Agreement dated 11 March 2004 between the Council and The Ferrymead Trust.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the car park affecting a limited number of people but being an outstanding obligation with a significant shortfall of funding.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve construction of a gravel car park within the budget available this financial year (2017/18).

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Regional Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.3.5 Provide, develop and maintain facilities to the satisfaction of park users

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – An unsealed gravel car park is constructed within the available budget. (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Car park construction is deferred until sufficient funding is available for a sealed car park.

·     Option 3 – A car park is not constructed.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It provides the Ferrymead Trust with overflow parking as required under the Deed of Agreement 2004.

·     The proposed car park is broadly consistent with the approved Ferrymead Park Development Plan 2007.

·     It can be completed within existing budget.

·     The car park can be upgraded to a sealed surface in the future if required.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The car park would be of lower quality than a sealed car park and at odds with the longer term development plans for Ferrymead Park.

·     Unsealed car parks can be problematic in the way they are used. They sometimes attract undesirable driver behaviour. It would, therefore, be preferable to keep the car park locked and open it only during large events, effectively giving exclusive use to Ferrymead Heritage Park and selected events.

·     An unsealed car park is less durable and has higher ongoing maintenance costs than a sealed car park. It would require regular grading and regravelling.

·     If the car park was to be sealed at a later date when additional funds are available, the base would need to be reworked. Therefore, the costs to construct the gravel car park ($100,000) would effectively be ‘sunk-costs’.

·     The future costs of forming a sealed car park will likely increase due to escalation in construction and other costs.

 

5.   Context/Background

Council Commitments

5.1       The 2007 Ferrymead Park Development Plan was produced with extensive community input and identified a wide range of development projects intended to create a vibrant, integrated park. Although many of these projects have been implemented there has been an inevitable delay in delivering some elements of the Plan as Council funds were, and continue to be, diverted to priority City-wide projects following the 2010/11 earthquakes.

5.2       Integral to the Development Plan consultation process was a Deed of Agreement dated 11 March 2004 between the Council and The Ferrymead Heritage Trust (the ‘Trust’) which involved the transfer of land and / or creation of various property rights and interests. The majority of the actions contemplated by this Agreement have now been completed. 

5.3       One such requirement, as outlined in clause 7.1 of the Agreement, provides that ‘the Council agrees to grant an easement granting access to and use of the Truscotts Road (now known as Ferrymead Park Drive) Car park….(and) agrees to form the car park at the approximate location on the Plan…the car park and right of way will be formed at the cost of the Council as follows:

(a) the right of way will be formed to the standard specified in the approval obtained for the right of way under s348 of the Local Government Act 1974.

(b) the car park will be constructed to the standard required by the Proposed City Plan and will provide for a maximum of 40 permanent car parks with provision for overflow parking for a maximum of 60 cars.

(c) the Council will complete all physical work and do all the things necessary to enable the Truscotts Road Car park to be available for use by the Trust no later than the end of June 2005 but in no circumstances will the Trust make any claim against the Council for any delays that may occur in the completion of such work which arise entirely out of circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Council.

5.4       The permanent car park (currently 46 car spaces) was formed and has been operational for a number of years. The work to create the overflow car park (maximum 60 car spaces) remains outstanding and the Trust have been lobbying for the Council to address its obligation as a matter of priority.

5.5       Informal advice from Buddle Finlay (Council’s legal advisors to the original 2004 Agreement) as to the Council’s requirement, or otherwise, to comply with its obligations under clause 7.1 indicated the following.

5.6       ‘In simple terms Council is required to comply with its obligations unless there has been a supervening event which destroys the basis for the obligations. For example, an earthquake that actually destroyed the land or which make the work required to comply with the obligations vastly different than either party anticipated, may end Council’s obligations. (We) don’t think Council would be able to argue any such supervening event here as here it is simply a matter of priorities ie Council has chosen to allocate funds to other earthquake related repairs instead of completing the works under the Agreement.

5.7       With regard to timing Buddle Finlay added further. “These works were to be completed by the end of June 2005 provided that the works could be delayed due to circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Council. We are of the view that the impact on Council’s funds due to the earthquakes is a legitimate basis for delaying the works. That said, there is a limit as to how long Council can rely on the earthquakes as a reasonable basis for delaying the works. Whether or not the time limit has been exceeded will be arguable and will be heavily dependent on the circumstances”.

Overflow Car Park Configuration

5.8       The Ferrymead Park Development Plan contemplated that the approximate location for the permanent car park would be adjacent to the main Heritage Park entrance building with the overflow car park comprising predominantly angle parking stretching south from the permanent car park along Truscotts Road (now Ferrymead Park Drive) towards its intersection with the rail corridor (refer Attachment A).

Car Park Additions

5.9       A preliminary concept design for the overflow car park was discussed with the Trust in late March 2017. Situated to the south of the informal bike jump area and the existing entrance into Lake Matuku, the overflow parking consisted of a series of additional informal gravel and grassed angled car park ‘pods’ situated between the tram-line posts along the length of Ferrymead Park Drive, as indicated on the 2007 Development Plan.

5.10    A preliminary indicative budget (based on limited concept design) estimated the costs of this option to be in the region of $700,000 to $800,000 including GST, the majority of the cost being associated with the extensive bulk earthworks required to form the multiple car park ‘pods’ and re-design of the swale areas, bunding, work around the tram poles, and remediation work required to a significant length of Ferrymead Park Drive.

5.11    The Trust raised some serious concerns regarding pedestrian safety associated with the proximity of the angled parking to the road and danger of cars backing onto (and patrons walking along) the road. In addition, from an operational perspective the distance of the parking from the main entrance would be prohibitive for many of its patrons.

Car Park Extension (Attachment B)

5.12    To address and test these costs, safety and operational issues, staff subsequently developed an alternative option which essentially comprised an extension to the existing permanent car park (refer Attachment B) on the area currently occupied by the informal bike jump area, which would be relocated to the east of its current location until a more permanent location is confirmed.

5.13    In addition to addressing the Trust’s principle concerns around safety (by providing consolidated off-street parking) and proximity to the main park entrance (it forms an extension to the existing permanent car park), a preliminary indicative estimate suggests that this option could be as much as $100,000 cheaper than the original ‘Car Park Addition’ option referred to above, even allowing for the fact that it would also provide an asphalt (rather than gravel / grassed) surface.

5.14    The principle reasons for this include: smaller (m2) car park / overall ‘site’ coverage / connecting pathways / landscaping areas; potentially less earthworks; less work to Ferrymead Park Drive; no work around tram poles / wires, and; less ground improvement work (the area being less flood-prone than the south end of Ferrymead Park Drive). Consolidating the car park into a smaller, more integrated, site area also frees up land to the south for future expansion (if required) and will likely deliver lower ongoing maintenance costs.

5.15    Given its potential cost, safety and operational advantages, the ‘Car Park Extension’ option forms the focus for the remainder of this report.

Demand

5.16    The existing car park accommodates 46 vehicles. This serves Ferrymead Park and particularly Ferrymead Heritage Park. During busy periods such as school holidays and special events the car park is full to overflowing. People park on the side of Ferrymead Park Drive and walk down the road. This is a safety concern as formal pedestrian access down Ferrymead Park Drive is not provided.

5.17    There is increasing demand from the Heritage Park for additional car parking. The Trust is focussed on growing Ferrymead Heritage Park as a sustainable business and is providing an increasing number of events in the park. The existing car park is insufficient to meet demand. For example, there were 700 visitors at their recent monthly Steam Sunday event and summer numbers are expected to be higher. Other popular events include Nostalgia, KidsFest, Heritage Week programmes and special events at long weekends. A new Winter Carnival and outdoor movie nights in summer are also planned.

5.18    Other events, such as City to Surf, also operate from Ferrymead Park and would make use of the car park extension.

Funding

5.19    A sealed car park is preferred but no funding source has been identified in the current financial year to meet the expected cost of construction. The Board would need to seek changes to the Council’s budget for this to occur.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Unsealed Gravel Car park Extension Constructed Within the Existing Budget

Option Description

6.1       As outlined above a preliminary concept plan has been prepared for a car park extension located adjacent to and south of the existing car park opposite the entrance to Ferrymead Heritage Park on Ferrymead Park Drive – refer Attachment B.

6.2       The site is currently covered with mounds of soil that have been shaped and developed by local residents as informal bike jumps. It is intended to move the soil approximately 50m to the east where it can still be used informally until a permanent location for the bike jumps has been determined.

6.3       The location of the car park extension is in a similar location but with a different layout to that indicated on the 2007 Ferrymead Park Development Plan.

6.4       As outlined above in paragraph 5.3 its construction by Council was contemplated in a Deed of Agreement with the Ferrymead Trust dated 11 March 2004.

6.5       The car park would be constructed within the existing budget of $185,000.

6.6       The surface would be graded and gravelled (as opposed to sealed), and there would be no car space markings. A chain link fence at each end of the car park area would be the only fencing provided. This is estimated to cost approximately $100,000. Perimeter bollards, landscaping, edge bollards, directional signage and formed formal walkways would be additional costs.

Significance

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

6.8       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are restricted to the Ferrymead Trust as the general provision of car parking has already been consulted on during preparation of the Development Plan.

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    The Ferrymead Trust (and, by association, the Ferrymead Heritage Park) are specifically affected by this option as they have an expectation that Council will honour its obligation to provide the overflow car park as contemplated by the 2004 Deed of Agreement.

6.11    The Trust supports the car park extension in the proposed location.

6.12    The Trust envisaged a gobi block surface. However, gobi blocks are of similar cost to asphalt, are difficult to get grass established, and have high ongoing maintenance requirements.

6.13    A gravel option may meet their expectations (notwithstanding the issues associated with higher maintenance costs, aesthetics etc).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – in the order of $100,000 for basic car park (costs to be confirmed one more detailed design has been completed). Fencing and landscaping costs would be additional.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – annual / ongoing maintenance costs associated with the gravel surface would be greater than a sealed car park but would still be low.

6.17    Funding source – there is $185,000 available in the Ferrymead Park Development budget this financial year.

Legal Implications

6.18    Refer paragraphs 5.5 to 5.7 above which broadly underlines the Council’s on-going obligation to construct the overflow car park.

Risks and Mitigations    

6.19    The proposal is to construct the car park to enable the Council to deliver on its contractual obligation and to mitigate the risk of litigation and / or adverse publicity from The Ferrymead Trust. The level of risk is considered low in this context. This unsealed option could be acceptable to the Trust.

6.20    To mitigate the risk associated with the capital cost of the project it is recommended that detailed design work is undertaken to determine a more accurate estimate of project costs.

6.21    Unsealed and unmarked car park surface is a matter of discretion in the Christchurch District Plan, and will therefore require resource consent.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - construction of this unsealed Option 1 is contingent on the Board resolving that the unsealed option is to be constructed rather than seeking additional funding to construct a sealed car park as in Option 2.

6.23    Implementation timeframe – once Council approval is confirmed the timeframe for completing the project could be in the order of 3-6 months (for design, tender, construction).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   It provides the Ferrymead Trust with overflow parking as required under the Deed of Agreement 2004.

·   The proposed car park is broadly consistent with the approved Ferrymead Park Development Plan 2007.

·   It can be completed within existing budget.

·   The car park can be upgraded to a sealed surface in the future if required.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The car park would be of lower quality than a sealed car park and at odds with the longer term development plans for Ferrymead Park.

·   Unsealed car parks can be problematic in the way they are used. They sometimes attract undesirable driver behaviour. It would be preferable to keep the car park locked and open it only during large events, effectively giving exclusive use to Ferrymead Heritage Park and selected events.

·   An unsealed car park is less durable and has higher ongoing maintenance costs than a sealed car park. It would require regular grading and regravelling.

·   If the car park was to be sealed at a later date when additional funds are available, the base would need to be reworked. Therefore, the costs to construct the gravel car park ($100,000) would effectively be ‘sunk-costs’.

·   The future costs of forming a sealed car park will likely increase due to escalation in construction and other costs.

7.   Option 2 – Deferred Sealed Car park Extension

Option Description

7.1       The car park construction is deferred until sufficient funding is available for a sealed car park.

7.2       The car park extension would provide in the order of 40 off-road car parks as an extension, and of a similar standard, to the existing sealed permanent car park. The car park would be fully landscaped with marked car park spaces, edge bollards, informal connecting walkways and two integrated (existing) access points to Ferrymead Park Drive.

7.3       The sealed and fully landscaped car park would mean that ongoing improvement and maintenance works would be kept to a minimum. 

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are restricted to the Ferrymead Trust as the general provision of car parking has already been consulted on during preparation of the Development Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       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

7.7       The Ferrymead Trust (and, by association, the Ferrymead Heritage Park) are specifically affected by this option as they have an expectation that Council will honour its obligation to provide the overflow car park as contemplated by the 2004 Deed of Agreement. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – currently estimated to be in the order of $600,000 (costs to be confirmed once more detailed design has been completed). If construction is deferred it is likely that these costs would increase as a result of escalation – increase in construction costs, inflation etc.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – minimal until renewal is required.

Funding source – 2019-28 LTP process.

Legal Implications

7.11    Refer paragraphs 5.5 to 5.7 above which broadly underlines the Council’s on-going obligation to construct the overflow car park.

Risks and Mitigations    

7.12    The proposal is to construct the car park to enable the Council to deliver on its contractual obligation and to mitigate the risk of litigation and / or adverse publicity from The Ferrymead Trust.

7.13    The level of risk is considered low in this context on the assumption that the Ferrymead Trust is prepared to accept a delayed construction timeframe (however, if the delay was to be years, rather than months, then it is likely the Trust may press for a temporary car park to be constructed to meet their immediate needs).    

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies - construction of the deferred overflow car park would be contingent on Council funding approval through the LTP process. 

7.15    Implementation timeframe – once funding has been confirmed the timeframe for completing the project could be in the order of 6-9 months (for design, tender, construction).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Constructing the car park would fulfil the Council’s obligations under the Deed of Agreement 2004 with The Ferrymead Trust.

·   A sealed car park would most effectively meet the current and growing demand for car parking in this area.

·   The proposed car park is consistent with the approved Ferrymead Park Development Plan 2007.

·   A sealed (as opposed to gravel) car park provides beneficial operational (lower maintenance costs), aesthetic, and future–proofing outcomes to Council.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not meet the Trusts immediate requirement for overflow parking.

·   A delay in construction for a period of years may precipitate pressure from the Trust for Council to construct a temporary car park.

·   Car park funding will need to be prioritised over other projects in the LTP.

·   Deferred construction would likely result in escalation of project costs.

Option 3 – A Car park is Not Developed

Option Description

7.18    A car park is not developed.

Significance

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

7.20    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are restricted to the Ferrymead Trust as the general provision of car parking has already been consulted on during preparation of the Development Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.21    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

7.22    The Ferrymead Trust (and, by association, the Ferrymead Heritage Park) are specifically affected by this option as they have an expectation that Council will honour its obligation to provide the overflow car park as contemplated by the 2004 Deed of Agreement. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.23.1 Inconsistency – Deed of Agreement 2004 and Ferrymead Park Development Plan 2007

7.23.2 Reason for inconsistency – does not meet the requirement to provide overflow car parking

7.23.3 Amendment necessary – remove this requirement from the Agreement and the Development Plan

Financial Implications

7.24    Cost of Implementation – no capital cost. There will be other costs in renegotiating the Deed of Agreement 2004.

7.25    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

7.26    Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.27    The Council would fail to address its obligations to construct an overflow car park as contemplated by the Deed of Agreement with the Trust. This may result in the Trust seeking ways to enforce the Council to fulfil this obligation.

Risks and Mitigations   

7.28    The option of not constructing the car park will prevent the Council delivering on its contractual obligation. This is likely to result in litigation and / or adverse publicity from The Ferrymead Trust.

Implementation

7.29    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

7.30    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.31    The advantages of this option include:

·   Additional Council funding would not be required. The existing funds allocated in the Ferrymead Park development budget could be diverted to other projects planned for the Park.

7.32    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council would not fulfil its obligations under the Deed of Agreement with the Trust.

·   The Trust could consider options to force Council to comply with its obligation to provide overflow car parking. This, in turn, may generate negative media coverage.

·   Not providing overflow parking will / may precipitate the continued practice of general parking along the length of Ferrymead Park Drive by the public thus precipitating the continuation of the safety issues raised by the Trust. 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ferrymead Park Development Plan August 2007

49

b

Ferrymead Park proposed car park extension

50

 

 

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

Kelly Hansen - Senior Recreation Planner Parks

Barry Woodland - Property Consultant

Approved By

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

12.    Settlers Reserve - Proposed Easement

Reference:

17/993994

Contact:

Sarah Stuart

sarah.stuart@ccc.govt.nz

941 8191

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve an easement for the right to drain sewage over the parts of Settlers Reserve identified in Attachment A.

1.2       The Board is also requested that should it approve the granting of the easement, to recommend to the Chief Executive that she exercise her authority as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the easement.  The Minister has delegated her authority to the Council, who have subsequently sub-delegated the authority to the Chief Executive.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is being submitted to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board following the design of a new bio-filter to extract and treat H2S (Hydrogen sulphide) gas from the sewer main trunk.

1.4       An easement is required over Council land but staff do not have a delegation to make a decision in this matter because the land is held as a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977. The Board has the delegated authority of the Council to make a decision on the granting of this proposed easement whilst the Council has the delegation to grant consent on behalf of the Minister of Conservation.

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.

·        The level of significance was determined by a significance and engagement assessment worksheet. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve pursuant to Section 48(1)(a) and Section 48(2) of the Reserves Act 1977, the granting of an easement for the right to drain sewage over the parts of Settlers Reserve shown on the submitted plan as Attachment A, subject to:

a.         No objections being received and upheld in response to public notification.

· Note, that if submissions in opposition are received in response to the public notice, a Council hearings panel is to be convened, in accordance with Part D – Subpart 4 of the Councils delegations register, to hear and determine submissions and objections in relation to this proposal.

b.         The consent of the Minister of Conservation or her delegate.

c.         All necessary statutory consents under but not limited to the Resource Management Act and Building Control Act, being obtained.

2.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, using the Council’s delegated authority from the Minister of Conservation, consents to the granting of the easement to the Christchurch City Council for the right to convey wastewater as outlined in the staff report.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager, should the easement be granted with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to finalise documentation to implement the easement.

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Wastewater Collection

·     Level of Service: 11.0.1 Provide wastewater collection in a safe, convenient and efficient manner (customer satisfaction)

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Grant the easement (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do not grant the easement

 

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

·     Addresses public complaints of a foul odour from the sewer.

·     The bio-filter removes H2S gas which is corrosive to concrete wastewater pipes and should be extracted and treated where possible.

·     The easement will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·     The easement will identify the existence of the pipeline on the title.

·     An easement is required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·     Supports Health and Safety by identifying the location of the facility on the title.

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

 

5.1       Users of the popular walking track on Settlers Reserve have complained about the foul odour emitting from the sewer main. 

5.2       A new bio-filter has been designed to treat hydrogen sulphide gas (H2S) from the sewer main trunk and an easement is required over Council land alongside the main trunk. 

5.3       Extraction and treatment of H2S gas will also reduce corrosion to the concrete wastewater pipes.

Settlers Reserve

5.4       The areas of reserve land affected by the proposed easement comprise a:

·   1,943 m2 parcel held in title 176820, being Section 1 SO 19742; and a

·   2,802 m2 parcel held in title CB26B/1272, being Lot 2 DP 51483. 

Both areas are held by the Council as local purpose (esplanade) reserve which is subject to the Reserves Act 1977. 

Bio-filter infrastructure

5.5       The bio-filter will be above ground level and appear to be a bark bed within a 10m x 5m raised timber frame. The bio-filter and 2.5m x 2m fan cabinet will take up 60m2 of the 150 m2 easement area and the balance of the area will be landscaped. 

5.6       The bio-filter will require a power supply to power the intake fan and a water supply to irrigate the bark media surface in order to keep the bark at optimum moisture content. The power and water will be supplied from Settlers Crescent and will be in a shared trench up the east side of the reserve access lane. The water pipe will be 25mm diameter MDPE flexible pipe and the power cable will be contained within a 50mm diameter PCV pipe. There will be warning tape in the trench above the power and water supplies to reduce the risk of accidental damage to these services.

5.7       The associated underground services will be included in the easement.

5.8       Below is an example of a bio-filter that was built recently at 1070 Ferry Rd (the proposed bio-filter will be about two-thirds the size of this):

5.9       Construction is planned for late 2017. 

 

Easement

5.10    Section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 (the Act) provides that the Council with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, may grant easements for rights-of-way and other services over reserve land. In this case Section 48(1)(a) “any public purpose”.

5.11    Under Section 48(2) of the Act, it is necessary for the Council to publically notify its intention to grant an easement except where the reserve is unlikely to be materially altered or permanently damaged, and the rights of the public in respect of the reserve are unlikely to be permanently affected (section 48(3) of the Act). Public notification is required because the proposed bio-filter is a permanent above-ground feature.

5.12    The easement area required is shown highlighted on the plan in Attachment A. 

5.13    It is the normal policy of the Council that a one-off compensation fee, as determined by an independent valuation, is payable to the Council for the privilege of gaining an encumbrance on the Council’s title. (Council 27 September 2001.) In this case, the Council is making an application to the Council and accordingly it would be illogical for a fee to apply.

5.14    The works will be undertaken by a suitably qualified contractor who will comply with all Health and Safety regulations in accordance with best practice. The contractor will be determined by a tender process.

 

Consent of the Minister of Conservation

5.15    In exercising the consent of the Minister of Conservation, the Council should be satisfied that due procedure has been followed and in this respect the Council should have regard to the following matters:

·        The land affected by the application is a reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

·        The easement being applied for falls within the purposes specified in Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act.

·        The provisions of Section 48(2) (public notification) have been complied with or that a waiver can be given to this requirement under Section 48(3).

·        Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987 (this Act shall be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi) meaning that in consenting to transactions under the Reserves Act 1977, consideration is to be given to the requirement or otherwise to consult with iwi.

5.16    It is confirmed that the subject land is reserve land, held in titles 176820 and CB26B/1272 for local purpose (esplanade) reserve.  Section 48(1) of the Act allows the Council to grant rights-of-way and other easements over any part of the reserve for any public purpose (section 48(1) (a)).  Public notification of the proposed easement has been undertaken according to Section 48(3) of the Act.

5.17    Specific consultation with iwi is not considered necessary as the site affected does not feature in the City Plan as having any significance to tangata whenua and the proposal is believed to be consistent with the framework of the Mahaanui Iwi Management Plan (MIMP) as the proposed earthworks activities will be minimal.

6.   Option 1 – Grant the easement (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Grant the easement on the conditions stipulated.

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 appropriate.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.4       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 not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       A statutory notification process is being undertaken to determine if there are any views in opposition to this proposal.  The response to this notification after the closing date (13 October 2017) will be the formal indication of the community to the intended above ground easements.

6.6       At the time of writing one submission was received from the owner of the adjoining property at 32 Settlers Crescent.  This raised concerns relating to flooding from the sewer pipe, and the potential for the bio-filter to increase the fire risk.  Council staff visited the owner to discuss these concerns. 

6.7       The flooding issues related to two manholes associated with the sewer pipe.  Staff assured the owner that the top of the manhole closest to the proposed bio-filter would be replaced and sealed to prevent any overflow.  Issues with the new manhole lid closest to Settlers Crescent would continue to be dealt with by Waste Water as an operational issue.

6.8       The explanation that the bark in the bio-filter would be kept damp by automatic sprinklers was sufficient to allay the owner’s fire concerns. 

6.9       The option of installing a mechanical filter instead of a bio-filter was discussed.  Council staff subsequently made the decision to proceed with the bio-filter on the basis that it would be more aesthetically pleasing in the natural setting and the operational costs would be lower in the long run.

6.10    The owner was satisfied that his concerns had been addressed and resolved and subsequently withdrew his submission.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – negligible, staff time

6.13    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Existing Three Waters and Waste budgets.

6.14    Funding source – 522/001652/01/05, CPMS 33392 ($165,682 2017/18). It is confirmed this is budgeted for and funding is available.

Legal Implications

6.15    Section 48(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 enables the Council, with the consent of the Minister of Conservation, to grant easements over public reserves, in this case for the right to drain sewage.  This includes the installation of associated underground services, the fan chamber and the bio-filter.

Risks and Mitigations   

6.16    The proposal is a permitted activity under the City Plan rules, current and proposed.

·        Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies – construction of the bio-filter is dependent on the grant of easement.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - three to four months. The works are scheduled to commence mid to late 2017, and to be completed within four months.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·        Addresses public complaints of a foul odour from the sewer.

·        The bio-filter removes H2S gas which is corrosive to concrete wastewater pipes and should be extracted and treated where possible.

·        The easement will protect the infrastructure in perpetuity.

·        The easement will identify the existence of the pipeline on the title.

·         An easement is required to comply with the Reserves Act 1977.

·        Supports Health and Safety by identifying the location of the facility on the title.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor earthworks and temporary restrictions on the use of the reserve.

7.   Option 2 – Do not grant the easement

Option Description

7.1       Do not approve the grant of the easement.

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 appropriate.

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       Reserve users may continue to complain about the odour of H2S gas as it is released from the sewer pipe’s manhole.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

·        Inconsistency - the proposed bio-filter is a planned capital work in the Long Term Plan. 

·        Reason for inconsistency – departs from the LTP.

·        Amendment necessary – the capital works budget will need to be adjusted.

 

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – acquiring an alternative site may be more expensive.

7.8       Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – Existing Three Waters and Waste budgets.

7.9       Funding source - 522/001652/01/05, CPMS 33392 ($165,682 2017/18) may need adjustment if the bio-filter is not constructed, or if an alternative site is acquired.

Legal Implications

7.10    Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations 

7.11    Risk project delay caused by the easement not being granted and result in the need to identify and secure an alternative site which may be more costly.

·        Residual risk rating - the rating of the risk is low.

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:

·   There will not be minor earthworks and temporary restrictions to the reserve.

·   The titles will not be further encumbered.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Construction of the bio-filter cannot proceed without the easement.

·   An alternative route will need to be secured which may be more costly.

·   Does not resolve public complaints regarding the odour from the sewer.

·   Does not reduce corrosion to concrete wastewater pipes by the extraction and treatment of the H2S gas.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Easement Plan

58

 

 

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

Sarah Stuart - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Stuart Graham - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

13.    Application to the 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund - Aranui Eagles

Reference:

17/1079507

Contact:

Carly Waddleton

Carly.waddleton@ccc.govt.nz

941 5120

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Linwood Central Heathcote to consider an application for funding from their 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

57255

Aranui Eagles Rugby League Club

Pacific Series

$14,778

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to assist the Community Board to consider an application for funding from Aranui Eagles Rugby Club.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Aranui Eagles Rugby League Club towards the Pacific Series.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

Total Budget 2017/18

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$209,824

$20,385

$206,824

$203,824

 

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

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

LCH Decision Matrix Aranui Eagles

61

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Carly Waddleton - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

18 October 2017

 

 

14.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

This item provides an opportunity for Board Members to update each other on recent events and/or issues of relevance and interest to the Board.