Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 4 October 2017

Time:                                    1pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

4 October 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

John Filsell

Head of Recreation, Sports & Events

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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/

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Council delegates to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee authority to:

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications up to a value of $150,000.

§  Approve extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees or working groups the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Housing Subcommittee for matters relating to housing as stated in its terms of reference

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the Multicultural Strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 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.......................................................................................................................... 5

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

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 5

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 5

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

B       6.       Presentation of Petitions................................................................................................ 5

STAFF REPORTS

C       7.       Briefing Housing First Proposal for Christchurch

Paul Cottam will update the Committee on the Housing First proposal for Christchurch

C       8.       Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update........................................ 15

C       9.       Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July 2017 - 31  August 2017...................... 23

C       10.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch............ 31

C       11.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch. 43

C       12.     Resolution to Exclude the Public................................................................................. 54  

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 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 Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 be confirmed (refer page 6).

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.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

6.   Petitions

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

 

Social and Community Development Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 6 September 2017

Time:                                    1.03pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway – departed at 4.50pm

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

5 September 2017

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

John Filsell

Head of Recreation, Sports and Events

Tel: 941 8999

 

Liz Ryley

Committee Advisor

941 8153

liz.ryley@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

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00032

That an apology for absence from Councillor Keown be accepted.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Councillor Livingstone declared an interest in the briefing by Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka about social housing on the Nga Hau E Wha Marae.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00033

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Social and Community Development Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 be confirmed.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

Historic Places Canterbury

             Mark Gerrard spoke on behalf of Historic Places Canterbury regarding the engagement process relating to Item 10 Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei For us and our children after us: a new direction for heritage.

 

5.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

6.   Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 28 July 2017

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00034

That the Social and Community Development Committee receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 28 July 2017.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                                  Carried

 

7.   Briefing - Nga Maata Waka

 

Arana Talbot and Phil Moran of Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka briefed the Committee about social housing on the Nga Hau E Wha National Marae.

 

Committee Comment:

As a result of the presentation, the Committee thanks Te Runanga o Nga Maata Waka, and suggests Nga Maata Waka writes to the Christchurch City Council requesting the development contribution on its social housing project be remitted.  Staff will update the Committee once this has occurred.

 

 

8.   Briefing - Residential Advisory Service Update

 

An update on the Residential Advisory Service (RAS) was provided by Jenny Hughey, Council representative on RAS, Darren Wright, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Ken Pope, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on:

·    Activity levels

·    Structure and delivery model

·    Governance and funding changes

·    Focus for RAS.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00035

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Thanks the Residential Advisory Service for their presentation.

 

2.         Requests staff prepare a report on the possibilities of measures including legislative change to address the long delays which have occurred in settling insurance claims arising from the Canterbury earthquakes.

 

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

9.   Briefing - Cobham Intermediate School - Development of a Citizenship Programme

 

Josiah Tualamali’I from the Pacific Youth Leadership and Transformation (PYLAT) Council, and College student Sofia, addressed the meeting about running a youth-led trial of citizenship/civics education in Christchurch.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00036

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Thanks Josiah Tualamali’I and Sofia for the presentation, and acknowledges the work being undertaken by Kendall Lattin.

 

2.         Request staff provide a memorandum to the Committee about the Cobham Intermediate School’s Citizenship Programme, about how the Council can support the programme through the Council’s civic education resource, and consider a request for a champion from Council.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                     Carried

 

11. Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for the Former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $200,000 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 544 Tuam Street.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a full conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00037

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $200,000 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 544 Tuam Street.

2.         Approves a further second Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $200,000 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 544 Tuam Street in the 2018/2019 financial year, subject to funding being allocated to the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund through the 2018-2028 Long-term Plan process.

3.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a full conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Johanson                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

 

12. Heritage Incentive Grant Application for St Peter's Church, 24 Main South Road, Christchurch

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00038

Staff and Committee Recommendations

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that Council heritage staff have considered the application for a Heritage Incentive Grant for strengthening of St Peter’s Church against the relevant policy and operational guidelines criteria and have concluded that the application does not meet the policy and operational guidelines criteria.

2.         Declines a Heritage Incentive Grant for the strengthening component of the proposed work to St Peter’s Church located at 24 Main South Road, Upper Riccarton.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Clearwater                                                                                                     Carried

 

Councillor Chen requested that his vote against the resolution be recorded.

 

An adjournment was taken from 3.03pm to 3.13pm.

 

10. Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei
For us and our children after us: a new direction for heritage

 

Committee Comment

1.         The Committee acknowledged the hard work by staff on the new direction for heritage, along with contributions by building owners and others to saving heritage.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that:

1.         It instruct staff to prepare a Heritage Strategy with an implementation plan outlining a new direction for heritage.

2.         The Strategy is based on the following principles:

·    our inheritance and legacy;

·    the recognition of both tangible and intangible heritage;

·    a story-based approach that acknowledges all our cultures;

·    under-pinning our local and community sense of place and city identity.

3.         The Strategy is developed in partnership with Ngāi Tahu.

4.         Implementation of the Strategy is developed in partnership with key stakeholders, owners and the community to include, but not limited to:

a.         A charter or shared values agreement developed through further engagement to implement the new strategic direction collaboratively.

b.         Regular workshops to facilitate a collaborative approach to achieving positive heritage outcomes.

c.         Establishment of regular hui with the ngā Rūnanga. 


 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00039

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee seek staff advice on the process and feasibility of a Heritage Regeneration Plan in response to the deputation by Historic Places Canterbury and the feedback on the new direction for heritage.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00040

Committee Recommendation to Council/Committee

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that:

1.         It instruct staff to prepare a Heritage Strategy with an implementation plan outlining a new direction for heritage.

2.         The Strategy is based on the following principles:

·    our inheritance and legacy;

·    the recognition of both tangible and intangible heritage;

·    a story-based approach that acknowledges all our cultures;

·    under-pinning our local and community sense of place and city identity.

3.         The Strategy is developed in partnership with Ngāi Tahu.

4.         Implementation of the Strategy is developed in partnership with key stakeholders, owners and the community to include, but not limited to:

a.         A charter or shared values agreement developed through further engagement to implement the new strategic direction collaboratively.

b.         Regular workshops and/or forums to facilitate a collaborative approach to achieving positive heritage outcomes.

c.         Establishment of regular hui with the ngā Rūnanga.

5.         Council facilitate a workshop with relevant organisations and agencies to consider an overarching strategic approach to moveable cultural property in Christchurch city.

 

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                     Carried

 

13. Review of the Three Council Heritage Grants Schemes, Incentive, Central City Landmark and the Arts Centre

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receive the report on the Review of the Three Council Heritage Grants Schemes; Incentive, Central City Landmark and the Arts Centre.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00041

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.      Receive the report on the Review of the Three Council Heritage Grants Schemes; Incentive, Central City Landmark and the Arts Centre.

2.      Request staff workshop the results of the review with the Committee to identify any recommendations for improvement into the future.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

14. Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan Community Engagement and Feedback

 

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00042

Staff and Committee Recommendations

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommend to Council that it:

1.         Endorse the Botanic Gardens Spatial Plan in its current form.

 

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

 

15. Draft Events Policy Framework

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Error! No document variable supplied.:

1.         Note the attached Draft Events Policy Framework (Attachment A), will replace the Events Strategy 2007-2017.

2.         Note that the Draft Events Policy Framework is a high level document intended to outline responsibilities for events between the Council and ChristchurchNZ, and set a combined vision for events in Christchurch.

3.         Note that feedback from the events sector and teams across Council has been incorporated into the Draft Events Policy Framework.

4.         Note that ChristchurchNZ is currently developing a Major Events Strategy, and Council staff will soon begin work on a Community Events Implementation Plan.

5.         Agree to forward the Draft Events Policy Framework to Council and recommend it approves the Draft Events Policy Framework to be released for public consultation.

Committee Decided SOC/2017/00043

Part A

That the Social and Community Development Committee recommends that Council:

1.         Note the attached Draft Events Policy Framework (Attachment A), will replace the Events Strategy 2007-2017.

2.         Note that the Draft Events Policy Framework is a high level document intended to outline responsibilities for events between the Council and ChristchurchNZ, and set a combined vision for events in Christchurch.

3.         Note that feedback from the events sector and teams across Council has been incorporated into the Draft Events Policy Framework.

4.         Note that ChristchurchNZ is currently developing a Major Events Strategy, and Council staff will soon begin work on a Community Events Implementation Plan.

5.            Approves the Draft Events Policy Framework to be released for public consultation.

6.         Instruct staff to facilitate a workshop with the Social and Community Development Committee and Strategic Capability Committee to inform the Draft Events Policy before it is released for consultation.

 

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                      Carried

 

16. Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update August 2017

 

Committee Comment

The Committee referred to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for consideration, the issue of adoption of best practice guidelines for blue paint on mobility carparks.

 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00044

Part C

That the Social and Community Development Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update report.

Councillor Johanson/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

17  Resolution to Exclude the Public

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2017/00045

Part C

That at 4.50pm the resolution to exclude the public set out on pages 274 to 275 of the agenda be adopted.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                        Carried

 

Councillor Galloway departed.

 

The public were re-admitted to the meeting at 5.20pm.

   

Meeting concluded at 5.20pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

8.        Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update

Reference:

17/1015299

Contact:

Alistair Pearson

Alistair.pearson@ccc.govt.nz

9418465

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to accept the project updates herein attached.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the attached Capital Delivery Major Facilities Project Updates report.

 

 

 

3.   Key Points

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Major Facilities Elected Member Update 15 September 2017

16

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Alistair Pearson - Manager Capital Delivery Major Facilites

Rita Estrella - Senior Project Coordinator

Approved By

Liam Nolan - Head of Vertical Capital Delivery and Professional Services

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

9.        Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July 2017 - 31  August 2017

Reference:

17/1022103

Contact:

Claire Milne

Claire.milne@ccc.govt.nz

941 8496

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on the Council's Social Housing programmes of work.

Origin of Report

1.1       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected by the Social Housing programmes of work.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information supplied in the Social Housing Programme Report for 1 July – 31 August 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Council’s Social Housing portfolio currently consists of 2,478 units.

4.2       The total portfolio numbers as at 30 June 2010 equated to 2702 which included 23 units leased by other community providers and 23 units owner occupied. The commencement of the renewal programme in 2014 saw a slight increase in numbers to 2714 (12 units).

4.3       The decrease in total portfolio numbers reflects the commencement of the demolitions programme, including 113 units in the red zone and 172 earthquake damaged properties under the repair and renewal programme. The overall decrease is offset with an increase of a total 61 new build units in this period (refer chart 1).

4.4       Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) manage the majority of tenancies within the portfolio.  As of 1 July 2017, OCHT are also responsible for the minor (reactive) maintenance in relation to all complexes under that lease agreement.

4.5       The balance of the portfolio is either owner occupied (nine units) or managed by one of four other community housing providers (32 units) detailed in 5.6 below.

4.6       As at 31 August 2017 there were 2262 open/tenantable units (91.2 %) in the Social Housing Portfolio. This is an increase of five operable units (units returned to service) since 1 July 2017. Units are closed for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to pending redevelopment, demolition, EQ repair, methamphetamine contamination remediation, asbestos or other significant asset related issues. Open/tenantable units fluctuate on a monthly basis.

4.7       During the period 1 July to 31 August Repair and Renewal Programme works continued across 23 complexes as detailed in 6.1 of this report. Works included:

·   Repair works across 19 complexes

·   Renewal planning for the build of 6 units across two complexes

·   Demolition works in progress at two complexes, and demolition planning for a further two complexes. 

4.8       In accordance with Government legislative and policy changes work continues to be undertaken in the areas of insulation assessment and/or installation.  Assessment or partial assessment has been completed on some 77% of complexes.

4.9       Methamphetamine testing is undertaken routinely on all vacated units and on units where repair and renewal or planned works programmes are to commence.

4.10    Since 1 July 2017 the majority of the minor (reactive) maintenance work is undertaken under the Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). Other planned programmes of work are managed by the Housing Team.

4.11    Planning has continued under the capitalisation programme for the transfer of assets to the Otautahi Community Housing Trust.

4.12    Chart 1 (below) represents the change in Social Housing portfolio numbers and the disbursement of numbers across all lease types.

 

   Chart 1.

4.13    Figure 1 depicts the relevelling process for the North Wing at Tommy Taylor Courts under the Repair and Renewal programme.

       Figure 1.

5.   Background

5.1       Council has been providing low-cost accommodation to low-income residents of Christchurch for almost 80 years, being a pioneer of social housing in New Zealand. The first units were built in 1938 – 16 pensioner units in Sydenham.  Today it owns 2478 units, located across the city and on Banks Peninsula, which makes it one of New Zealand’s largest owners of social housing.

5.2       Council’s broader direction for housing, including social housing, is set out in the Housing Policy 2016, the amended Christchurch Housing Accord 2017 and the Council’s Social Housing Strategy 2007.

5.3       Such policy contains several goals that guide the ongoing management and delivery of Council’s social housing portfolio. 

5.4       Pertinent goals from the Housing Policy 2016 include: 

·   Retaining affordable housing - Develop a range of creative, collaborative and innovative ways to ensure the coordinated long term promotion, provision and retention of both social and affordable housing.

·   Housing quality - Improve the standards, regulations and monitoring on housing design and quality to achieve healthier housing for households irrespective of their income.

5.5       The Social Housing Strategy 2007 recognises that the Council has a leadership role in the provision and facilitation of social housing in Christchurch under seven goals including Partnership; Managing Demand; Location; Brokerage and Advocacy; Compatibility and Integration; Facilitation and Resourcing and Services Sustainability. 

i)     Key objectives for Council under these goals include maintaining , upgrading  and where appropriate increasing  its supply of social housing; supporting best practice for warm dry and safe housing; continuing to ensure appropriate resources are available to manage complex tenancy needs and partnerships; to be the leader in quality social housing service provision and for housing operations to remain rates neutral.

Lease Arrangements

5.6       Prior to October 2016, Council managed the majority of its social housing assets directly.  A small number of units were leased to other agencies:

·   The Beckenham Housing Trust (Lancewood Courts) – supported social housing

·   YWCA – emergency and transitional accommodation for single women and women with children

·   Home and Family – residential parenting programme

·   Anglican Care – McGregors Road (Ka Wahine) – transitional housing for women

5.7       In September 2016, Council resolved to enter into a lease for the remaining properties. Management of these properties transferred to OCHT on 4 October 2016.

5.8       There are currently 9 owner occupied units in the Council Housing portfolio (8 at Aldwins Courts and 1 at Perth Street [HP Smith]).

Transfer of Assets

5.9       Capitalisation of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust through the transfer of assets has commenced to fulfil the Council’s obligations under the Housing Accord. This programme aligns with Council’s resolutions of 9 July 2015 (headed ‘Capitalisation of Housing Entity as required by Housing Accord’) and 8 September 2016 (headed ‘Transfer of $50m Housing Fund Assets – Process’).

5.10    Council have since completed the first asset transfers with Louisson Courts and Charles Street vacant land properties being officially transferred to OCHT on 10 February 2017. The second tranche of properties, comprising properties in the social housing red-zone compensation package, were transferred to OCHT on 21 June 2017.

5.11    Work continues for the determination of assets to be included in the next tranche of properties to be transferred under this programme of work.

6.   Planned Works Programmes 1 July 2017 – 31 August 2017

Repair and Renewal Programme

6.1       During the period 1 July to 31 August Repair and Renewal Programme works continued across 23 complexes. 

6.1.1   Works included open and closed unit repairs, ancillary or services works, and planning and procurement processes for: Airedale Courts, Briggs Row, HP Smith Courts, Tommy Taylor Courts, Bridgewater Courts, Fred Price Courts, Guise Lane Courts, Sandilands Pilot Project (asbestos removal) Huggins Place, Maurice Carter Courts, Norman Kirk Courts, Forfar Courts, Glue Place, Reg Stillwell Place, St Johns Courts, Vincent Courts, Clent Lane, YWCA, Ka Wahine, and Lancewood Courts.

6.1.2   A scoping programme is in progress for the balance of the portfolio to provide updated information on any repair works required.

6.1.3   Table 1 indicates the repair programme status for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Complex Name

Status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Clent Lane (36 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Ka Wahine (2 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Guise Lane Courts (21 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Maurice Carter Courts - stage 1 (51 units)

Completed

EQ unit repairs

100%

Aug-17

Briggs Row (4 units)

Completed

New timber retaining wall completed

100%

Aug-17

YWCA (9 units)

In progress

• Internal and ancillary works complete.
•External works in progress

99%

Sep-17

Bridgewater Courts (23 units)

In progress

•EQ repairs in progress

82%

Oct-17

Fred Price Courts (37 units)

In progress

•EQ repairs in progress

77%

Nov-17

Sandilands - Pilot Project (24 units)

In progress

• Asbestos removal and EQ repairs pilot project due to commence October  2017 - units 17 & 19 coulter Street
•Contractor appointed
• Consultation held with all residents September 2017
•Tenant preparing for temporary re-location

0%

Dec-17

Tommy Taylor Courts (25 units)

In progress

• Repairs: successful lifting and relevelling of building completed 3/08/17.  
• Lift consisted of 12 jacks situated under newly constructed ground beams jacking off twelve deep concrete piles.
• New concrete slab foundations underway to be completed 29/9/17.
• First & second floors currently under repair and refurbishment.

• North wing graffiti removal completed.

59%

Mar-18

Airedale C;D;G (92 units)

In progress

monitoring of ground movement in place

20%

Apr-18

Huggins Place (30 units)

in progress

• EQ repairs in progress
• works extended to include installation of damp course and insulation to all units in complex.

11%

Nov-18

Scoping programme (623 units)

in progress

 EQ damage

37%

Oct-17

Lancewood Courts (11 units)

RFT

• Repair: Full design & consent application completed and submitted to council for building consent.
• RFT completed and uploaded to GETS.
• Construction to commence 9/10/17.

0%

Apr-18

Norman Kirk Courts (60 units)

Planning

Concept planning

0%

TBC

Maurice Carter Courts Stage 2 (51 units)

Planning

Planning

0%

Apr-18

HP Smith Courts (23 units)

Planning

• Full drawings for repair underway
• Review of internal scope.

0%

TBC

Forfar Courts- (35 units)

Residents Lounge

Planning

• Updating scope ready for direct appointment.
• Minor internal and external cosmetic EQ repairs

0%

TBC

Glue Place –services (35 units)

Planning

•Pre tender site investigations undertaken

0%

TBC

Reg Stillwell Place – services (6 units)

Planning

 • To be completed post demolition programme

0%

TBC

St Johns Courts (13 units)

Planning

 • Pre tender planning

0%

TBC

Vincent Courts (18 units)

Planning

 • Pre tender planning

0%

TBC

Table 1.

6.1.4   Planning and procurement has progressed under the renewal programme for six units, including five units at Bruce Terrace in Akaroa and the replacement of one fire damaged unit at Bryndwr Courts.

6.1.5   Table 2 indicates the renewal (new build) programme status for the 2017/2018 financial year.

Complex Name

status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Bruce Terrace (5 units)

Tender

•site visits undertaken with contractors
•RFT process completed

5%

May-18

Bryndwr Courts (1 unit)

Design

• RFT process completed
• Contract in progress
• Detailed design underway prior to Building Consent submission.

10%

Dec-17

Table 2.

6.1.6   Demolition of a total of 58 units is in progress at Reg Stillwell and Cresselly Place, and planning is underway for the demolition of Block A at Airedale Courts (18 units).

6.1.7   Table 3 indicates the demolition programme status for the 2017/18 financial year.

Complex Name

status

Description of works

% complete

Expected completion date

Reg Stillwell Place (28 units)

Demolition underway

 • Demolition in progress
• Asbestos removal complete- increased asbestos uncovered throughout demolition process

40%

Sep-17

Cresselly Place (30 units)

Demolition underway

• Demolition of 30 units complete. 
•  Site works nearing completion

90%

Oct-17

Fred Price Courts (2 units)

Planning

• Demolition of 2 units (1&2) on completion of EQ repairs

0%

tbc

Airedale Block A (18 units)

Preparation for tender

• Asbestos testing & management plan completed.
 • RFT completed and uploaded to GETS.
•all tenants relocated - building closed for occupation

0%
RFT

Dec-17

Table 3.

Insulation

6.2       Council are working closely with Community Energy Action (CEA) to complete and validate assessment of insulation of all units within the social housing portfolio by December 2017.

6.3       The insulation installation programme continues to be a priority with assessment or partial assessment completed on some 77% of complexes. 

%

Insulation status

10.4%

complexes fully insulated & certified

17.9%

complexes not assessed

50.0%

complexes partially assessed

17.0%

complexes assessed but without statement of adequacy

4.7%

complexes to be demolished or redeveloped

3.               Table 4.

Methamphetamine

6.4       Methamphetamine testing is undertaken routinely on all vacated units and on units where repair and renewal or planned works programmes are to commence.

6.5       For the period 1 July to 31 August 2017 the following methamphetamine statistics apply

·   99 properties were tested (as per register).

·   15 tested positive on the indicator test.

·   Following the comprehensive testing (of the above 15 positive units) only one property was not fit to occupy due to levels above Ministry of Health (MoH) guidelines.

·   One long term vacant methamphetamine contaminated property was remediated via an insurer appointed contractor and returned to CCC.

6.6       There are currently 11 properties offline due to meth contamination, six have remediation costs between $35K - $50K and are currently pending insurance company acceptance of claim. 

Maintenance and Planned Works

6.7       Since 1 July 2017 the majority of the minor (reactive) maintenance programme is now undertaken under the Otautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT). 

6.8       Council continue to support upgrades and minor works outside of the minor (reactive) maintenance programme such as carpets, heater and stove replacements, roof and other works.

6.9       Council are responsible for ensuring that the Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) and fire compliance requirements are met. Under current regulations this applies to nine complexes with multi-story units.

6.10    External building and grounds assessments were undertaken on 13 complexes within this reporting period. This assessment programme enables identification of works and enable prioritisation of complexes for planned works programmes such as building wash downs and major tree works. There were no Health and Safety issues identified within this period.

6.11    Under the exterior paint programme 54 complexes have been identified as requiring exterior paint work over the next 5-6 years. 42 as part of a planned exterior paint programme (BAU) and 12 as part of the Repair and Renewal programme of works.  Based on the planned works exterior painting budget available in the 2017-18 financial year the aim is to complete the six complexes that have a condition assessment grade between 4 - 4.4 during this period.

Communication/ Consultation

6.12    Tenant communication and consultation is a key priority under all programmes of work, and is undertaken in liaison with (or through) OCHT Tenancy Managers or management staff of other leased properties to:

·   Collect specific tenant information for the upcoming relocations into temporary accommodation for repair and renewal works.

·   Gather Information to assist with future repairs at the complex.

·   Inform tenants of major upcoming works.

·   Offer tenants the opportunity to provide feedback.

7.   Looking forward

7.1       New works planned for 2017/18 include repairs to 184 open/tenantable units and 16 closed units across eight complexes. Works to services and/or resident lounges will take place in a further three complexes. The demolition of two units at Fred Price Courts, 18 at Airedale (Block A) and the post construction demolition of the three units at Bruce Terrace will also occur.

7.2       A further 15 complexes have been approved for repair in the 2018/19 year, although this is subject to approval under the Long Term Plan (LTP).

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Claire Milne - Programme Liaison Advisor

Approved By

Robert Orchard - Manager Social Housing

Stuart Graham - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Bruce Rendall - General Manager Corporate Services

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

10.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch

Reference:

17/977553

Contact:

Fiona Wykes

Fiona.wykes@ccc.govt.nz

9418052

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $3,690 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the protected heritage building located at 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the ongoing repair and maintenance of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·     The building will continue to be a landmark feature as an example of a two storey, model home in the area of the former Camelot Settlement.

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2017/2018 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Given the small size of the grant, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the standard percentage of the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 52 Longfellow Street is scheduled as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan and is listed Category 2 by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT).

5.2       52 Longfellow Street was an exhibition house to showcase the Workers’ Dwellings Act 1905. It was designed by two of Christchurch’s best-known architects from this period – Samuel Hurst Seager and Cecil Wood and has high architectural significance for this and for its adaptation into a moderately priced home for workers, of the modern bungalow style that Seager pioneered in New Zealand.

5.3       The design of this house won first place in the South Island section for a government competition held to attract established architects to design homes for a workers’ settlement. Restrictions were placed on cost and the number of rooms. The house was erected at the 1906-07 International Exhibition held in Christchurch, before being disassembled and re-erected in Longfellow Street as part of the Camelot Workers’ Dwellings settlement in Sydenham. This was a nationwide housing scheme established to provide low-cost, good quality houses for workers. Please refer to Attachment A “Statement of Significance” for further information.

5.4       The current owners of the building and applicants for the grant are Kaye Woodward and Paul Kean. The building has been the subject of previous Council Heritage Incentive Grant funding. A grant of $6000 was made in November 1999 and a grant of $4,627 was made in December 2011 for works to the building. The Operational Guidelines allow for future grant applications 5 years after a grant is made. No covenant has been put on the building as the grant amounts have been small.

5.5       Paul Kean works for Christchurch City Council and has signed a Conflict of Interest form with regards to this project.

52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch, June 2011

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested entail repairs and ongoing maintenance to the roof, including repair of timbers, repair of the metal roof, and painting of the timber. These works will continue the owners’ positive stewardship of this important building. Works to roofs are particularly important with heritage buildings, as they protect the heritage fabric beneath them.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to retain and protect the heritage fabric of the building. With the completion of the works outlined the building will be in an excellent state of repair, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Roof repairs

$7,380

Total of conservation and restoration related work

$7,380

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has high historical and architectural value and retention and repair is worthy of support. It is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$3,690

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.6       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

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Recovery Strategy

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$3,690

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$135,979

 

6.9       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.10    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.11    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.13    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.14    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. No covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.17    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the ongoing repair and maintenance of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The building will continue to be a landmark feature as an example of a two storey, model home in the area of the former Camelot Settlement.

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2017/2018 financial year

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Given the small size of the grant, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the standard percentage of the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($2,214) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1:

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$2,214

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$137,455

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   A lower level of funding would still require a similar amount of administration.

·   A lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula, and the gain in terms of funding for other projects from the fund would be negligible.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - 52 Longfellow Street, Christchurch

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Ceciel DelaRue - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

11.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch

Reference:

17/1026025

Contact:

Victoria Bliss

Victoria.bliss@ccc.govt.nz

027 222 2782

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for Cardowan at 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for a Heritage Incentive Grant.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the dwelling and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $135,979.00 for conservation, strengthening, repair and maintenance work to the protected heritage building located at 64 Opawa Road, Christchurch.

2.         Notes that payment of this grant is subject to the applicant entering into a 20 year limited conservation covenant, with the signed covenant having the Council seal affixed prior to registration against the property title.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2 All grants meet Heritage Incentives Grants policy and guidelines

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·    Option 2 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items

4.3       Options Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

             4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the future protection of this heritage building, and its ongoing use as a dwelling.

·    The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A landmark building on Opawa Road will be repaired and retained.

·    It is intended that the building will remain in residential use but the owner has expressed a desire to have interpretation at the dwelling which will enable the public to learn the history of Cardowan. The owner has also stated he will be retaining the view of the dwelling from the street and re-establishing the gardens.

·    With the completion of the works outlined, the dwelling will be repaired and upgraded, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This is a relatively large grant for a single building; however it is an investment in significant heritage building with local landmark value.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       Cardowan is scheduled as a Significant (Group 2) Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed Category II by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Registration Number 3815. The building is of historical and social significance: it is one of only a few original examples of a middle sized colonial suburban ‘gentlemen’s estates’ in the area, and provides a record of the development of the suburb of Opawa.  It is also significant for its association with two influential members of Christchurch society: Daniel McKay, Immigration Officer for the Canterbury Provincial government and John James Thomson, the philanthropist. JJ Thomson gifted the 63 acre Thomson Park to the people of Canterbury in 1931 to connect Victoria Park with the Sugar Loaf Reserve.

5.2       Cardowan was constructed in 1865 by David McKay, as the homestead for his 5 acre estate. The dwelling has architectural, aesthetic, technological and craftsmanship significance an unadorned two storey weatherboard construction, with the architecture influenced by the carpenter gothic style of the time. This includes gabled roof forms, arched windows and a projecting bay with a flared roof. Alterations and additions have occurred since its construction, but the original form remains clearly readable, and the street elevation is largely original. Please refer to Attachment A, “Statement of Significance” for further information.   

5.3       The dwelling suffered major structural damage in the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake sequence. It has remained uninhabited since the previous owners moved out, and has now been purchased on an ‘as is where is’ basis. Heritage and planning staff have previously had requests for information around the process for resource consent to demolish the property.

5.4       The current owner of the building and the applicant for the grant is Mr Ta Karati.

5.5       Mr Karati is seeking to repair and restore the dwelling. He has also stated he intends to retain the local landmark values of Cardowan, and views to the property from the street. This includes reinstatement of a traditional front garden. He has expressed a desire to place some interpretation or a plaque at the street boundary to provide information to the public about the history and significance of the dwelling. He is also interested in using digital technology to record the interior of the dwelling.

5.6       The total cost for the proposed repair, maintenance and upgrade of the building (heritage works only) is estimated at $297,235.00, excluding GST. There is no insurance payment associated with these works; however once completed the owner will be able to obtain ongoing building insurance.

5.7       The proposed works are intended to repair and stabilise the dwelling, undertake deferred remedial maintenance and complete upgrades required for building code compliance. They include foundation, sub floor and pile repairs and re-levelling, replacement of the roof and spouting, chimney stabilisation, drainage works, electrical upgrades and exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting. Other internal works are being undertaken at the same time to make the dwelling habitable, but these are not included in the grant application. They include new kitchen, bathrooms, lighting, hot-water system, and other none heritage items such as internal painting.

 

Photograph of Cardowan, 64 Opawa Road, January 2015, M. Vairpiova

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works will structurally upgrade and repair the building, and undertake deferred remedial maintenance and conservation works. They involve foundation, pile and sub floor repairs and upgrades, electrical and drainage upgrades, chimney stabilisation, roofing and spouting renewal, exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting, including repairs to the original sash windows.

6.2       Overall the heritage works being proposed are priced at $297,235 excluding GST, additional works will also be undertaken which are not eligible for heritage grant funding. All relevant costs of the heritage related works are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Chimney stabilisation

$15,000

Foundation, pile, sub floor upgrades and re-levelling

$118,323

Exterior repairs, maintenance and repainting

 

$86,000

Sash window conservation

$6,720

Roofing and spouting

$34,422

External drainage works

$14,000

Electrical upgrades

$22,770

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$297,235

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building has historical and social significance to Canterbury, as well as architectural, aesthetic and technological significance. Its ongoing repair, retention and upgrade is worthy of support. A grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project, which would be a grant of $148,617.00. The fund has a balance of $135,979 currently available. It is therefore recommended that this sum be approved as a grant for Cardowan.

 

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works requiring assistance)

$135,979.

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes. The recent ‘Future of Heritage’ engagement has identified that the community values its local heritage as being fundamental to its local distinctiveness, sense of place and character. It has also identified a desire for heritage to be seen as a legacy to be protected for future generations. It is also seeking heritage to be promoted through stories and trails. The connection of Cardowan to Thomson Park would be one opportunity to achieve this.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

 

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch – Mahere Haumanutanga o Waitaha

·           The Replacement Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

 

Financial Implications

             Cost of implementation:

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$3,690

Proposed grant to 64 Opawa Road

$135,979

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$0

 

 

6.8       The Heritage Protection activity includes the provision of advice, the heritage grants schemes, heritage recovery policy, and heritage education and advocacy. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the city.

6.9       Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.10    The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.12    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A 20 year limited conservation covenant will be required in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building is retained once the work is undertaken.

Implementation

6.14    The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. A resource consent or approved Heritage Works Plan will be required for these works.

6.15    The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·    The work will help to ensure the future protection of this heritage building, and its ongoing use as a dwelling.

·    The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·    A landmark building on Opawa Road will be repaired and retained.

·    It is intended that the building will remain in residential use but the owner has expressed a desire to have interpretation at the dwelling which will enable the public to learn the history of Cardowan. The owner has also stated he will be retaining the view of the dwelling from the street and re-establishing the gardens.

·    With the completion of the works outlined, the dwelling will be repaired and upgraded, and the owner is committed to the continuing use and maintenance of the building.

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a relatively large grant for a single building, however it is an investment in a significant heritage building with local landmark value.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       As for option 1 but with a lower level of financial support to the project. Previous HIG Grant support to other projects in the city has varied but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($89,170.00) is shown in the table below. 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2017/18          

$719,000

Commitment from 2016/2017

$76,734

Approved grant to 129 Cambridge Terrace

 $24,552

Approved grant to 28 Dublin Street, Lyttelton

$44,900

Approved grant to 26 Godley Quay

$28,253

Approved grant to 185 Kilmore Street, Christchurch

$204,892

Proposed grant to the former Pumphouse, 544 Tuam Street

$200,000

Proposed grant to 52 Longfellow Street

$3,690

Proposed grant to 64 Opawa Road

$89,170

Total Available Funds 2017/2018

$46,809

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Would leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a significant heritage building repair project at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

·   The risk that the owner would delay the works or would scale back some of the heritage conservation components. This would put the dwelling at risk from ongoing water ingress and decay, and at risk of further damage in future seismic events.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

64 Opawa Road Statement of Significance

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

Author

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Ceciel DelaRue - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

12.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

04 October 2017

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

13

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 6 September 2017

 

 

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

 

14

 Approval for the allocation of a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant

s7(2)(b)(ii)

Prejudice Commercial Position

The release of this paper could prejudice ongoing comercial negotiations.

At the completion of the commercial negotiations, irrespective of the outcome