Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 4 December 2017

Time:                                    3pm

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

 

 

29 November 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

04 December 2017

 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 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 - Gelita............................................................................................... 13

C       8.       Staff Briefing on Project WL1 - Ferry Road Streetscape & Movement Improvements at Woolston Village .......................................................................................................... 17

Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

C       9.       Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 24 November 2017............................................................................ 19

STAFF REPORTS

C       10.     Worcester St/Tancred St, Linwood intersection - Proposed No Stopping and P60 Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 23

C       11.     8 Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions.............................. 31

C       12.     152 Bridle Path Road, Heathcote Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions....... 39

C       13.     Rapaki Road and Vernon Terrace - Proposed Parking Restrictions.......................... 47

C       14.     Woolston Park Playground Renewal........................................................................... 67

a       15.     Ferrymead Park Car Park.............................................................................................. 77

C       16.     Scarborough Park Playground Renewal...................................................................... 89

C       17.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Adoption of the 2018 Meeting Schedule....................................................................................................................... 129

C       18.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2017/18........ 131

C       19.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report................................. 133

B       20.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 149 

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 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 Wednesday, 22 November 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.

5.1

Scarborough Park

Dr David Brinson will speak to the Board on his submission on the Scarborough Park: Playground Renewal Project.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

 

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 22 November 2017

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

22 November 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

An apology for lateness was accepted from Brenda Lowe-Johnson.

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

Tim Lindley declared an interest in Item 8. (2 Soleares Avenue – Proposed Accessible Parking) and took no part in the discussion or voting on this matter.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00187

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 6 November 2017 be confirmed.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                     Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

Ms Rhodora Sagles, Manager of Birthright Canterbury, presented to the Board on services being provided by Birthright to one parent families.

The Chairperson thanked Ms Sagles for making her presentation to the Board.

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.   Staff Briefing

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefing regarding the Woolston Community Facility and car park at 689 Ferry Road rebuild.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00188

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefing regarding the Woolston Community Facility and car park at 689 Ferry Road. 

2.         Requests that staff discuss with the Woolston Library and Community Facility Working Party an opportunity for a brief public engagement for the naming of the facility.

Darrell Latham/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

 

11. Wilson Park - Redevelopment Proposal to ARA Institute of Canterbury Campus

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00189 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part A

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Endorse the landscape changes proposed for Wilson Park as part of the Ara Institute of Canterbury Campus High Street entrance upgrade as detailed on the Developed Concept Plan – High Street Entrance (Stage 2) Dated 18.09.2017 by Align Planning and Design (Attachment 1), and

2.         Recommend to the Council to approve the proposed landscape changes to Wilson Park as part of the ARA campus High Street entrance upgrade, as detailed on the Developed Concept Plan – High Street Entrance (Stage 2) Dated 18.09.2017 by Align Planning and Design (Attachment 1)

Deon Swiggs/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

12. Risingholme Hall - Earthquake Repair Future Use

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the removal of Risingholme Hall from the Council “List 3” of heritage buildings that identified buildings requiring Long Term Plan (LTP) funding and having no determined use, which is no longer applicable owing to the Risingholme Community Centre will manage the future occupancy of the Risingholme Hall and funding is through existing budgets.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00190

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the removal of Risingholme Hall from the Council’s “List 3” of heritage buildings that identified buildings requiring Long Term Plan (LTP) funding and having no determined use, as this is no longer applicable as the Risingholme Community Centre Incorporated will manage the future occupancy of the Risingholme Hall and funding is through existing budgets.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2017/00191

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

2.         Requests that staff report to a Board meeting in February 2018 on the removal of Penfold’s Cob Cottage from the Council’s “List 3” of heritage buildings, noting the extensive community consultation and work to date on this project.

Jake McLellan/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                          Carried

 

Meeting adjourned at 11.17am and reconvened at 11.31am.

 

 

8.   2 Soleares Avenue - Proposed Accessible Parking

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00192 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disability parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport - Road User Rule 2004 on the north east side of Soleares Avenue, commencing at a point 48 metres south of the south western kerbline of McCormacks Bay Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 6 metres.

Yani Johanson/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

9.   198 Avonside Drive -  Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00193 (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 east side of Avonside Drive commencing at a point 18 metres south of its intersection with Cowlishaw Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 37 metres.

Yani Johanson/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

10. 2 Lancaster Street, Waltham - Proposed P5 Parking Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00194 (Staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 5 minutes between Monday and Friday during the hours 7am to 4pm on the east side of Lancaster Street commencing at a point 11 metres north the of its intersection with the northern kerbline of Stevens Street and extending in a northerly direction for 6 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 5 minutes between Monday and Friday during the hours 7am to 4pm on the north side of Stevens Street commencing at a point 9 metres east of its intersection with the eastern kerb line of Lancaster Street and extending in an easterly direction for 12 metres.

Tim Lindley/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

13. Application to the 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Waltham School Recycling Project

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00195 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $933 from its 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Waltham School towards the Waltham School Recycling Project.

Deon Swiggs/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                                Carried

 

14. Application to 2017/18 Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund - Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Incorporated

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00196 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Makes a grant of $7,990 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Friends of Edmonds Factory Garden Incorporated towards sunrise seats.

Sara Templeton/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                             Carried

 

15. Application to the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club (WPASC) Swimming Advancement Fund - Linwood Avenue Community Pool

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2017/00197 (Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves a grant of $6,000 from the Woolston Park Amateur Swimming Club Swimming Advancement Fund to Youthtown Incorporated. towards Linwood Avenue Community Pool 2018.

Alexandra Davids/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                Carried

Deon Swiggs left the meeting at 11.45

Deon Swiggs returned to the meeting at 12.10

16. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

 

Staff Recommendation

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Apply to the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee to appear and be heard on behalf of the Christchurch City Council to the Liquor Licensing Application for 375 Ferry Road.

3.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline.

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

 

 

Community Board Decided LCHB/2017/00198

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Apply to the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee to appear and be heard on behalf of the Christchurch City Council on the Alcohol Licensing Application for 375 Ferry Road.

And agreed that a workshop be held early 2018 for the Board to formulate the presentation to the District Licensing Committee.

3.         Request staff to provide advice on options for the Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre library opening longer on  Saturdays. Options could include reducing opening hours during the week to accommodate longer Saturday opening hours, or use of volunteer support.

4.         Request that Newsline/Board Newsletters have articles relating to:

·    Animal management including aspects of the Dog Control Bylaw for public education;

·    Reminding the public on the usage of the Coastal Pathway, including a reminder to cyclists that the Pathway is a shared facility;

·    Update on what is happening with Master Plans;

·    Bromley Joint odour monitoring between E-Can and the Council.

5.         Request staff to investigate drainage issues in Drayton Reserve to ensure any discharge from the reserve is not entering waterways further down to cause excess silting.

6.         Request staff to provide an update on the outcomes of the Scott Park Working Party meeting.

7.         Request staff to provide an update on the timeline for mitigating the effects of skateboards on the carpark at 34 Nayland Street, Sumner.

Darrell Latham/Brenda Lowe-Johnson                                                                                                               Carried

 

 

 

 17.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Mention was made of the following matters:

·    Heathcote Riverbank between Opawa and Ferry Roads – The Board were advised that there had been a meeting with some residents on the maintenance of the Heathcote Riverbank.  Customer Services Requests have been lodged.

·    The Homeless Collective Update: The Board were advised that 73 people who had been without homes had been allocated houses, 22 people had found employment, and nine applications had been made for housing.  A weekly breakfast is being held at Margaret Mahy Playground at 9.00am for the homeless.

   

Meeting concluded at 12.32pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 4th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.

Sally Buck

Chairperson

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

7.        Correspondence - Gelita

Reference:

17/1420714

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Gelita

Gelita Operations - Woolston

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 04 December 2017

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Correspondence: Gelita Operations Woolston

14

 

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

8.        Staff Briefing on Project WL1 - Ferry Road Streetscape & Movement Improvements at Woolston Village

Reference:

17/1409017

Contact:

Kelly Griffiths

Kelly.griffiths@ccc.govt.nz

941 8767

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Staff will give an update on Project WL1 – Ferry Road Streetscape and  Movement Improvements at Woolston Village

Kelly Griffiths

Josh Neville

Bill Homewood

Christchurch City Council

 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Staff Briefings

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

9.        Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Minutes - 24 November 2017

Reference:

17/1419941

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held a meeting on 24 November 2017 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

 

2.   Recommendation to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Confirm the Minutes from the Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board meeting held 24 November 2017.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Joint Meeting - Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board - 24 November 2017

20

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

10.    Worcester St/Tancred St, Linwood intersection - Proposed No Stopping and P60 Restrictions

Reference:

17/1353363

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 and P60 restrictions around the intersection of Worcester and Tancred Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a fatal crash that occurred at this location and subsequent local requests for measures to prevent a reoccurrence.

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 at any time on the northern kerbline of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Tancred Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northern kerbline of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Tancred Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 17 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern kerbline of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Tancred Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southern kerbline of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Tancred Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 10 metres.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western kerbline of Tancred Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 13 metres.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western kerbline of Tancred Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.

7.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern kerbline of Tancred Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 9 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern kerbline of Tancred Street commencing at its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

9.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 60 minutes on the southern kerb line of Worcester Street from a point 13 metres wet of its intersection with Tancred Street and extending in a westerly direction for 11 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install no stopping and P60 restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the sight lines for vehicles turning out of Tancred Street

·     Reduces the risk of turning vehicles overrunning centre lines on Tancred Street due to parked cars

·     Provides greater turnover of 2 customer or visitor spaces on Worcester Street and increase its likelihood of being vacant (and so improving sight lines) overall

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in a loss of parking by the equivalent of 9 spaces.

·     The new sign posts for the P60 restriction has a marginal effect on sight lines to the west

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Recently there was a fatal crash at this intersection involving a vehicle yielding on Tancred Street on its north approach which collided with a westbound vehicle on Worcester Street. The driver of the vehicle on Tancred St was killed. In terms of the factors that led to the event, a police investigation is still underway.

5.2       The existing intersection is currently marked as a ‘stop’ control. There are currently no road marking at the intersection in terms of guiding traffic movements nor parking restrictions.

5.3       The crash history for this location has been checked. In addition to the recent incident, one other crash occurred in 2014, involving a car on Worcester Street losing control. Drink/driving was suspected to be a major factor that influenced the crash taking place.

5.4       Council staff visited the site on multiple occasions. Whilst the area is mainly residential, there is a popular café on the south west corner of the intersection. This has a small car park on site, though many customers park on street through the day.  The majority of residential properties have parking within their property.

5.5       It was observed that the parking that occurs on Worcester Street can often be close to the intersection and affect the sight lines for drivers on Tancred Street.

5.6       It was also observed that some parking occurs on Tancred Street near the intersection.     When this occurs, especially if an SUV or commercial vehicle, approaching driving sometimes needs to drive over the centre line.

5.7       Staff consider that some parking restrictions should be introduced and that the effect on parked vehicles would generally be minor and require only an increased short walk of one minute or less. Since most neighbouring properties have on-site parking, the competing on-street parking demands are minor

5.8       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will ensure that sight lines are improved for drivers turning out of Tancred and reduce the need to drive over centre lines whilst driving into Tancred Street.  The new P60 restrictions also result in a more efficient use of street space near the café and assist sight lines at times when there are no customer or (resident) visitor demands.

5.9       In addition to the proposed restrictions, staff are proposing to introduce centre line markings on Worcester Street, to improve driver perceptions on Worcester Street. This layout is consistent with similar Worcester Street intersections at Gloucester Street and Hereford Street.


 

6.   Option 1 – Install No Stopping and P60 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping and P60 restrictions at the Worcester Street/Tancred Street intersection 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 29 (Under the Red Verandah café) and 41 Tancred Street and 499-511 Worcester Street. 

6.5       Responses were received from 4 properties; two of these objected and requested amendments, namely the café and 506 Worcester Street.  All supported the proposal in principle, though an amendment to the extent of the restrictions was requested.

6.6       Staff met the property owners who objected, on site on separate occasions. The property at 506 is on the south corner of the intersection and does not have parking space on his site and requested on-street parking within view of his window for security reasons. Consequently the extent on the south east corner was reduced, to achieve this to his satisfaction. Nevertheless, the remaining proposed extent still improves sight lines for drivers on Tancred Street south side.

6.7       The café is located on the south west corner of the intersection. The vehicle entrance to their car park is on Tancred Street south, though their main footpath entrance is on Worcester Street. They requested a reduction in restrictions on Worcester Street

6.8       An initial request was for the no stopping restrictions to be reduced by two car lengths. However, as a compromise, staff recommended a short stay restriction instead, which retains good turnover of spaces that would suit customer demands. A 60 minute restriction was agreed to be appropriate here.   This restriction was agreed to replace one car length of the original no stopping proposal and another car length that was proposed to be left unrestricted.

6.9       The café operates 7 days a week and is typically open 7.30 to 4.  Staff have recommended a P60 at any time restriction to deter long stay parking outside the business hours, in the interests of safety.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $500 to install road markings and provide 2 signs on new posts.

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

6.13    Funding source – Traffic Operations budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    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.

6.15    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.

6.16    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

6.17    Not applicable.

Implementation

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

6.19    Implementation timeframe – approximately 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.  Due to the summer holiday period there is likely to be a further 3 week shutdown (late Dec to late Jan) for regular programmed work.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the sight lines for vehicles turning out of Tancred Street

·   Reduces the risk of turning vehicles overrunning centre lines on Tancred Street due to parked cars

·   Provides greater turnover of 2 parking spaces on Worcester Street and increase its likelihood of being vacant (and so improving sight lines) overall

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in a loss of parking by the equivalent of 9 spaces.

·   The new sign posts for the P60 restriction will affect sight lines, albeit marginally,  to the west

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       Refer paragraphs 6.4 to 6.9. 

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 safety concerns of the local community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Worcester Tancred site plan

29

b

Worcester Tancred Location Plan

30

 

 

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

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

11.    8 Orbell Street, Sydenham - Proposed P30 Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/1302966

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 replacement of the existing 5 minute with 30 minute restrictions on the east side of Orbell Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business situated on the east side of Orbell Street.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide parking opportunities that correspond with the existing business activity 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.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Orbell St commencing at a point 13 metres north of its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 54 metres.

2.         Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 30 minutes on the east side of Orbell Street commencing at a point 13 metres north of its intersection with Brougham Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 32 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 – Replace the P5 with P30 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 increased parking opportunity for customers at the nearby businesses

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None identified.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local business owner located on Orbell Street requested a change to the existing restrictions outside their property. There is currently a P5 restriction for the whole frontage, which had been established for the previous business operation which was a different type of activity involving deliveries and collections of goods.  The current business attracts customers who are more likely to require parking for up to 30 minutes.

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to improve customer parking opportunities at this location.  Opportunities for loading and deliveries are already available on-site which renders the existing on-street P5 restriction unnecessary and wasteful.

5.3       The existing P5 restriction extends for a longer length of the frontage though includes two areas where staff or deliveries are accessed, so would not, in practice be available for on-street parking, since this would block the delivery/loading bays. Consequently the length of existing restriction is longer than that proposed.

5.4       Upon investigation at different times of day, council staff observed that the west side of Orbell Street is a P60 restriction and is often full during busy periods. Consequently the proposal would accommodate the surplus customer demands. Whilst the P60 is existing on the west side, the customer is requesting a 30 minute on the east side, being closer to the frontage entrance.

5.5       The installation of the 30 minute restrictions at this location will be a more appropriate provision for the current land use activity. 


 

6.   Option 1 – Replace P5 with P30 restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Replace the existing 5 minute with 30 minute restrictions on the east side of part of Orbell Street 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 8 and 36 Orbell Street, 32 Montreal Street, 5 and 21 Durham Street South.  Whilst these area the nearest properties, their addresses are relatively wide spread due to the size of the property lots

6.5       No letters of objection or request for amendment were received.

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 - $500 to remove and replace road markings together with installing two signs on existing power poles.

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 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides increased parking opportunity for customers at the nearby businesses

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing 5 minute restrictions

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 changing the type of restrictions to correspond with the business requirements.

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 operational needs of the nearby business.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Orbell St P30 site plan

36

b

Orbell St 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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

12.    152 Bridle Path Road, Heathcote Valley - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

17/1303006

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 east side of Bridle Path 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 at any time on the east side of Bridle Path Road commencing at its intersection with Hammerton Lane and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Bridle Path Road commencing at its intersection with Hammerton Lane and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install no stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improves the sight lines for drivers turning out of Hammerton Lane and access from 152 Bridle Path Road

·     Reduces the likelihood of customers crossing the road at this intersection location

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Results in a loss of parking by the equivalent of five spaces.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident raised concerns that vehicles parked on the east side of Bridle Path Road resulted in obstructions to driver visibility to the left and right, whilst turning safely onto this road. This was mostly to the right, as this is the direction into Christchurch.

5.2       Consequently parking restrictions have been requested, to improve the sight lines at this location.

5.3       Council staff met the resident on site and assessed the site environment. The parked vehicles are consistently customers at the café located opposite and include larger vehicles such as trucks, which affect the sight line to a greater extent. Customers sometimes linger near their vehicles for various reasons, which also leads to southbound traffic needing to cross the centre line to safely overtake.

5.4       In addition to the property access at 152, the sight line issues also affect drivers on Hammerton Lane, a right of way. This lane services approximately 6 properties.

5.5       The crash history for this location has been checked. This revealed that no crashes had been recorded between 2011 and 2015.  However, in terms of crash risk, Bridle Path Road is classified as a ‘medium’ risk which is of concern. Staff have identified risk factors such as the road having a winding alignment, carries a proportion of truck movements as well as recreational cyclists.  As the café is quite popular there can also be pedestrian movements between parked vehicles and the road.

5.6       Upon further investigation it is apparent that the café only has off-street parking for staff, using the adjacent riding school car park and that all customers park must on-on-street.  Currently parking opportunities are available on both sides on Bridle Path Road.

5.7       Staff consider that the restrictions would improve safety at this location and the inconvenience upon customers would require a longer walk of approximately a minute, by parking elsewhere on the east side of Bridle Path Road. As most properties provide their own parking, there are substantial alternative locations. On the east side, there are occasional property accesses though there are no further side roads for a considerable distance, which might result in a similar sight line issue elsewhere.

5.8       The installation of the no stopping restrictions will increase sight lines at this location and consequently improve road safety.


 

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on the east side of part of Bridle Path 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 131-156 Bridle Path Road including the café.

6.5       No letters of objection were received and there were three responses in support.

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 - $200 to install road markings.

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 6 weeks once the area contractor receives the request. 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves the sight lines for drivers turning out of Hammerton Lane and access from 152 Bridle Path Road

·   Reduces the likelihood of customers crossing the road at this intersection location

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Results in a loss of parking by the equivalent of five spaces

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 No Stopping Restrictions to improve road safety at this location.

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 safety concerns of the local community.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

152 Bridle Path Rd location plan

44

b

152 Bridle Path Rd NSR site plan

45

 

 

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

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

13.    Rapaki Road and Vernon Terrace - Proposed Parking Restrictions

Reference:

17/1397661

Contact:

John Dore

john.dore@ccc.govt.nz

9418875

 

 

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 in accordance with Attachment A and B.

1.2       Rapaki Road and Vernon Terrace are located within the road network as shown on Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated in response to requests from local residents on Rapaki Road and Vernon Terrace.

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 (11) was determined by assessment of the magnitude of the problem and the number of properties affected by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

Approve no stopping restrictions as shown on Attachment A, B and described below.

Rapaki Road, Odd Properties 1-47 and 70 – No Stopping Restrictions

1.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Rapaki Road, commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in a southerly direction for 273 metres.

2.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on the eastern side of Rapaki Road, commencing at its intersection with Erewhon Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for 307 metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Rapaki Road commencing at its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in a southerly direction for 16 metres

4.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Rapaki Road, commencing at a point 96 metres south of its intersection with Centaurus Road and extending in a southerly direction for 178 metres.

5.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Rapaki Road commencing at its intersection with Erewhon Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for 70 metres.

6.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the eastern side of Rapaki Road, commencing at a point 82 metres south of its intersection with Erewhon Terrace and extending in a southerly direction for 225 metres.

7.         Revoke all existing parking restrictions on Erewhon Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Rapaki Road and extending in a north easterly, then southerly direction, following the edge of the roadway for a total distance of 76 metres.

8.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the eastern side of Erewhon Terrace then the western side of Erewhon Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Rapaki Road and extending in a north easterly, then southerly direction, following the edge of the roadway for a total distance of 76 metres.

9.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the western side of Erewhon Terrace, commencing at its intersection with Rapaki Road and extending in a north easterly direction for 14 metres.

10.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time, on the western side of Erewhon Terrace then the eastern side of Erewhon Terrace, commencing at a point 37 metres north of its intersection with Rapaki Road and extending in a north easterly, then southerly direction, following the edge of the roadway for a total distance of 39 metres.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

·        Activity: Road Operations:

·     Level of Service: 10.0.6 Improve Road Safety: Reduce the number of reported crashes on the network

·        Activity: Parking

·     Level of Service: 10.3.8 Optimise operational performance

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

·        The advantages of this option include:

·     Allows for emergency vehicle access

·     Allows additional room for vehicles to manoeuvre

·        The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Removes some residential kerbside car parking spaces.

·     Small amount of parking will spill out into the surrounding area during peak times.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Rapaki Track provides walking and cycle access to the Port Hills and is popular with recreational users. Subsequently Rapaki Road and parts of Vernon Terrace experience high on street parking demands generated by recreational users of Rapaki Track.

5.2       High levels of on street parking particularly during summer weekends and weeknights after 5:30pm are creating accessibility issues for residents and emergency vehicles.

5.3       A council no stopping restriction scheme presented to the public in November 2016 aimed to resolve accessibility issues on Rapaki Road. Key feedback and themes from consultation were:

·    Restricting parking on Rapaki Road will push parking demand onto nearby streets and relocate the problem

·    Vernon Terrace is experiencing similar problems to Rapaki Road.

5.4       A revised and expanded scheme to include Vernon Terrace has been prepared based on feedback from the public and is shown on Attachment D. Key features include:

·        No stopping restrictions to provide a minimum 3m available lane width allowing for emergency vehicle access.

·        No stopping restrictions to provide areas for cars to pull over and informally give way to oncoming traffic

5.5       Following public consultation in August 2017, the scheme was further revised based on feedback received. These revisions are shown on the preferred option on Attachment A and B. The changes are clearly shown within the red clouded areas.

Parking Demand Surveys

5.6       Parking demand surveys undertaken by council staff from November 2016 to February 2017 show:

·        Peak recreational parking demand on a weekend at various times between 9:30am and 3:00pm

·        Peak residential parking demand during a weeknight at various times from 8:45pm-9:00pm

5.7       A tabled summary of peak parking data is included as Attachment E.

5.8       Six parking surveys were completed, two surveys captured resident parking demand during a weeknight evening and four surveys captured recreational parking demand during the weekend. The maximum parking demand for each road was used to conservatively estimate expected parking demand.

5.9       The Attachment E table clearly shows that peak parking demand was concentrated on Rapaki Rd, Vernon Tce from Centaurus Rd to outside number 30 and on Aynsley Tce from Centaurus Rd to the first bend (outside 79).

5.10    Centaurus Rd and the balance of Vernon Tce also have a slightly higher demand than the wider area.

5.11    Other streets surveyed around the Mt Vernon Carpark have low levels of parking demand compared to Rapaki and Vernon.

Changes to Parking Demand in Surrounding Area

5.12    The majority of the proposed changes occur on Rapaki Rd  and Vernon Tce from Centaurus Rd to outside property 30.These are the heaviest parked streets in the area. The proposal allows for approximately 72 carparks on these streets, compared to a surveyed parking demand of 69.

5.13    Four surveys were undertaken during peak parking times and the demand of 69 parked vehicles includes the maximum demands recorded on roads at different times and is therefore a more conservative estimate of demand.

5.14    It is reasonable to expect that available parking will not be 100% occupied, assuming an occupancy rate of 85%, approximately eight vehicles are estimated to overspill into the surrounding streets. There is kerbside parking available within a short walk of Rapaki Road to accommodate the parking overspill.

5.15    It is reasonable to expect these eight vehicles to park in the nearest possible available park on a surrounding street. Within 250m (approximately 3.5minute walk) of the intersection of Rapaki Road and Centaurus Road

5.16    Within 250m from Rapaki Road there is approximately 30 kerbside parking spaces available, that can accommodate any parking overspill as a result of the proposed changes.

5.17    Peak parking demand from Centaurus Road from Rapaki to Hillsborough Terrace had a surveyed peak parking occupancy of approximately 55%. There are approximately 22 spaces within 250m from Rapaki Road, at 55% peak occupancy approximately 10 spaces remain available.

5.18    Peak parking demand on Aynsley Terrace from Centaurus Road to the first right hand bend on Aynsley terrace is 100%. From this bend to outside 59 Aynsley there is approximately 13 kerbside parks available, surveys indicate 22% occupancy in this area leaving a total of about 9 kerbside parking spaces available.

NZTA Crash Risk and Crash History

5.19    NZTA have developed a crash risk assessment methodology for urban roads using recorded crash data. Council use a software package that calculates the assessed risk for sections of road and intersections. Risk is broken into five categories ranked from High to Low. The below table summarises Collective and Personal risk in the area.

LOCATION

COLLECTIVE RISK

PERSONAL RISK

Rapaki Rd, Vernon Tce, Aynsley Tce, Erewhon Tce

Low

Low

Centaurus Rd west of Rapaki

Low

Low

Centaurus Rd east of Rapaki

Low Medium

Medium

Intersection of Rapaki/Centaurus/Aynsley

Low

Low

Intersection of Vernon/Centaurus

Low

Low

 

5.20    The difference between Personal and Collective risk is that personal factors in traffic volumes.

5.21    Overall the road safety risk is assessed as low, notable exception is Centaurus Rd to the east of Rapaki Rd.

5.22    The NZTA crash database reports 13 crashes in the area shown on Attachment F from 2007-2017.

5.23    Ten of the crashes were recoded from 2007-2009, and the balance from 2012-2017. It is noted that the traffic islands on Centaurus Rd and at the intersection of Vernon were constructed around June 2010.

5.24    The crashes are clustered at the intersection of Rapaki/Vernon/Aynsley and Centaurus. No crashes were recorded on Rapaki Rd and Vernon Tce.

5.25    The most recent crash five year crash period from 2012-2016 reports three crashes resulting in two minor injuries. All three crashes involved a collision with a crossing vehicle. Two occurred at the intersection with Rapaki /Centaurus and the third on Centaurus Rd.

Estimated Traffic Volumes

5.26    Intersection counts at Rapaki and Vernon were not undertaken during the peak summer period, however from peak parking data and the number of residential households an estimate of daily traffic has been completed. The tables on Attachment G summarises estimated daily traffic volumes.

5.27    The estimated traffic volumes are higher than expected for a local road of this nature given the high recreational parking demand in the area. However, the total estimated traffic volumes are not excessive and can be accommodated in Rapaki and Vernon Tce when heavily parked.

5.28    There will be conflicts between vehicles travelling in opposite directions. The proposed scheme allows locations for vehicles to pull over and let on coming traffic pass as shown on Attachment A and B. This is an improvement from the current situation and can expect better accessibility on both Vernon and Rapaki.


 

6.   Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restriction (preferred)

Option Description

Install no stopping restrictions as shown on Attachment A and B.6.2       The option restricts parking to allow for additional room for vehicles manoeuvring along roads, maintain access for emergency vehicles and to improve safety.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community and key stakeholders were engaged via two rounds of consultation regarding this project. The first round was November 2016 and included Erewhon Terrace, Montgomery Terrace, Rapaki Road and the closest end of Vernon Terrace only. From the feedback received, it was quickly apparent that further investigations, traffic counts and a wider study area would be beneficial. Hence, a second round of consultation undertaken August 2017 included the addition of Vernon Terrace, Hillsborough Terrace, The Crescent, Centaurus Road, Aynsley Terrace and Glenelg Spur.  A public drop in session was also available on 14 August 2017 for the opportunity to speak with staff and attended by 27 visitors.

6.6       86 submissions were received during the consultation period. 29 (33.7%) respondents were in general support, 40 (46.5%) respondents support but have concerns, 16 (28.6%) do not support and one respondent provided comments only.

6.7       A large amount of written feedback was received through the submission process. Feedback was catergorised into themes and the main ones are identified below along with the repetition number. The project team responses too large to be included here can be viewed in Attachment H.

6.8       Themes arising Rapaki Road

Problem of parking demand exceeding supply has not been addressed                      14

Resident only parking                                                                                                                         14

Improve the parking on Aynsley Terrace (fix up verge)                                                        11

Provide a parking facility somewhere                                                                                          9

Further develop the car park at end of Hillsborough as an alternative                           6

Reduce speed limit to 30km and provide signage                                                                   6

Plan shifts problem onto neighbouring streets                                                                        5

More regular parking enforcement required at weekends                                                5

 

6.9       Themes arising Vernon Terrace

No stopping should be both sides of street at the bends (22-42)                                                 9

The adjusted plan has achieved no stopping, both sides at this bend

No stopping lines should extend both sides (up to no. 8) at Centaurus road end     7

The adjusted plan has some extension of no stopping lines so that parking can not occur both sides at once up to no 8

Vernon is no exit so the traffic passes through twice                                                            5

One way section does not need yellow lines                                                                                         5

The adjusted plan has removed these yellow lines

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $2000 - $2500 to road markings and timber sight rail.

6.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Covered under the area maintenance contract and effect will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.13    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    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.

6.15    The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

6.16    The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    Not applicable.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval from Spreydon Cashmere and Linwood Central Heathcote Boards.

6.19    Implementation timeframe - Approximately four weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·    Allows for emergency vehicle access

·   Allows additional room for vehicles to manoeuvre.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Removes some residential kerbside car parking spaces.

·   Small amount of parking will spill out into the surrounding area during peak times

7.   Option 2 - Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing.

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 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 community requests for improvement.

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:

·   Has no impact on existing on-street parking.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the accessibility issues on Rapaki Rd and Vernon Tce

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option - Rapaki Rd

56

b

Preferred Option - Vernon Tce

57

c

Location Plan

58

d

Consulted Option - Rapaki Rd and Vernon Tce

59

e

Parking Survey Table

61

f

Crash Diagram

62

g

Estimated Traffic Volumes

63

h

Consultation Responses

64

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

John Dore - Traffic Engineer

Kim Swarbrick - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Aaron Haymes - Manager Operations (Transport)

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

Diane Keenan - Head of Public Information and Participation

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

14.    Woolston Park Playground Renewal

Reference:

17/1256551

Contact:

Megan Carpenter

megan.carpenter@ccc.govt.nz

941 6761

 

 

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 landscape plan for the renewal of Woolston Park Playground.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a seminar with the Linwood-Central-Community Board on Monday 17 July 2017.

1.3       The report presents a landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park prepared in consultation with the community and affected stakeholders.

1.4       Woolston Park Playground Renewal is funded through the Christchurch City Council Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025.

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 on the suggested thresholds for assessing criteria, which had a medium level of possible risk to the Council of carrying out the decision and whether the impact of a decision can be easily reversed. There is a medium level of community interest with a medium-low assessment for the other criteria.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park as per Attachment A.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Sports Parks

·     Level of Service: 7.1.2 Deliver a high level of customer satisfaction with the range and quality of sports parks.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of play equipment which is near the end of its lifespan thereby removing a potential safety risk to playground users.

·     Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016.

·     The existing playground will remain open during the construction of the new playground and will be removed when the new playground opens.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Woolston Community Centre does not have visual surveillance over the new playground from inside the centre. Staff are investigating the possibility of installing a new window, however there is no budget for this work.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Woolston Park is a Sports Park located at 502 Ferry Road, Woolston.

5.2       The Parks Unit work on a 25 year renewal programme for play equipment to keep up with safety standards and compliance with the New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016. This ensures playgrounds are safe and maintain an acceptable level of service for the community.

5.3       There were two playgrounds located at Woolston Park, one alongside the boundary of Te Waka Unua School behind the former MED substation and the other located in front of the existing community centre. The playground behind the MED station was removed when the school replaced their boundary fence and was not replaced. This project is to renew the playground in front of the community centre.

5.4       Staff are proposing a new location for the playground which is beside the community centre and borders Te Waka Unua School. This location was selected as there is suitable casual surveillance from Ferry Road, as well as from Te Waka Unua School - the school looks out through the proposed location into Woolston Park. The location has suitable separation from Ferry Road and is consistent with Te Waka Unua School’s Master Plan.

5.5       The space behind the former MED station was not considered for the playground renewal due to it being a heritage setting in the Christchurch District Plan. In a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report dated 1 November 2016 completed by CCC for Te Waka Unua School prior to the playground removal, there was mention that this location is concealed from view from the street by the location of the substation building. It was recommended that CCC reconsider the location of this playground.

5.6       The location of the existing playground in front of the community centre was not considered as there is limited space due to existing trees and sports fields.

5.7       Capital funding for the construction of this playground has been approved in the Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025 for financial year 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 in CPMS 34000 Delivery Package –Sports Play and Recreation Facilities Renewal Programme.

Pre- engagement

5.8       Staff attended the Woolston Community Gala event on 25 March 2017. At this event staff shared information with the community around the upcoming playground renewal, and provided pictures of possible equipment to see what the community liked.

5.9       Children from Te Waka Unua School met with five early childhood centres in Woolston and asked them what type to play activities they would like to see in the renewal. They took along pictures of equipment and the children had stickers they could put on their favourite items. The landscape plan that was used for consultation was based on the feedback from the Woolston Gala and Te Waka Unua School.

5.10    Staff met with members of the Woolston Residents Association on 28 June 2017 to share the proposed landscape plan, feedback was received and responded to.

5.11    Staff attended a Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board seminar on 17 July 2017 to share the concept plan prior to heading out for Community Consultation.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To renew the playground at Woolston Park as shown in Attachment A. The proposed equipment will consist of the following items:

6.1.1   ‘Space Shuttle’ spinner, a four metre spinning climbing tower – With a horizontal net part way up the climber, which has 2 ropes seats, this adds an extra level of play. A hand wheel is also located on this upper-storey so you can rotate yourself while up in the air. This item is inclusive as children can be lifted to sit or lie in the basket.

6.1.2   A timber-frames swing-set with basket swing, infant swing seat and standard swing seat.

6.1.3   Both the swing-set and space shuttle spinner are proposed to be installed on soft fall matting. The matting will provide a visual contrast with colours to be determined during detailed design.

6.1.4   A nature obstacle course over low mounding and through planting, including timber stepping planks, posts with balance beams and boulders. There is an accessible grit path as well as an informal mulch path through the nature play area.

6.1.5   Seat installed on asphalt linking to the existing footpath with nearby shade tree.

6.1.6   Accessible picnic table installed on asphalt at the Woolston Community Centre end of the playground.

6.1.7   A connecting path from the existing park foot-path to a new school gate and path.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance included a letterbox drop, engagement with Te Waka Unua School and local early childhood groups, on-site signage, Have Your Say website and social media.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Community consultation on the Woolston Park Playground renewal was from 31 July 2017 until 21 August 2017. Leaflets were delivered to neighbouring properties, key stakeholders and absentee owners. There was an onsite corflute sign with leaflet holder and information was shared on social media.

6.6       A total of 26 submissions were received, with 20 submitters identifying that they were from Woolston. Of the 26 submissions, 15 submitters were in support, seven were in support but had some concerns, two submitters did not indicate whether they supported or opposed the plan and two submitters did not support the plan.

6.7       Of those that supported the proposal, five specifically mentioned that they liked the playgrounds location. There were also positive comments about the swing-set, ‘space shuttle’ spinner, ease of access to the space and passive surveillance of the playground. A submitter asked what will happen to the old playground and another requested more equipment.

6.7.1   Council do not gift or sell equipment to members of the public for their use, if the equipment is being removed due to age of equipment and non-compliance.

6.7.2   Including more play equipment is outside the budget and scope for this project.

6.8       The Canterbury District Health Board provided the following suggestions to their support for the proposal:  manage risk around surveillance given it is further away from the road than the existing playground; support visual connections with the community centre; sealed paths and matting underneath would allow access for all users including those with limited mobility; consider Mobility parking if there is space; seating should be closer to hard surfaces and shade trees (consider natives).

6.8.1   Recommendation from a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design review included some general maintenance and tidy up of an area between the proposed playground location and the cricket pavilion, as this would reduce the opportunity for concealment and other anti-social behaviour. This has been passed onto the Park Operations team for action. The CPTED review supported the installation of a window in the Woolston Community Centre if funding allowed.

6.8.2   Both the swing set and ‘space shuttle’ will be installed on soft fall matting to ensure these items are accessible.

6.8.3   Changes have been made to the mulch pathway so that some of this is now accessible.

6.8.4   An additional shade tree has been included in the design and plant types will be considered and chosen accordingly to what suits the environment.

6.8.5   Council are working on a traffic safety project for Ferry Road that considers access for park users.

6.9       Those who indicated they have some concerns about the proposal included requests to accommodate a wider range of users in the park such as teenagers, all ages and equipment for boys aged between seven and fourteen. There was a request for more seating and to consider a picnic bench/table and another form of lighting along the path and into the playground area.

6.9.1   Woolston Park has a half basketball court, tennis court and fitness trail that is suited to a wide range of park users. Other opportunities for youth is offered at nearby Linwood Park (play and skate).

6.9.2   An additional accessible picnic table has been included in the design.

6.9.3   As per CPTED guidelines, lighting of parks is discouraged unless its and essential designated route.

6.10    A submitter was concerned that the site is not easily visible from the Community Centre which has a number of functions attended by young children and their parents. Kimihia Parents School requested the jungle gym be put back into the park. The Blind Foundation asked for colour contrast to make the playground more visible and attractive, and for consideration of visual warnings and accessibility for the swing.

6.10.1 There was support from a CPTED review for the installation of a window in the Woolston Community Centre of funding allowed.

6.10.2 The jungle gym has been installed into Te Waka Unua School and this is accessible outside of school hours.

6.10.3 Visual contrast will be investigated during detailed design with assistance from the Blind Foundation.

6.11    Comments in opposition to the proposal included the playground area is too squashed, and a request to leave the green space as it is and to shift the boundary fence to incorporate the playground into the school and retain the existing playground.

6.11.1 The existing playground has reached the end of its life, therefore all equipment is to be removed.

6.11.2 It is importance to put the playground in a public space, so that the community can use it at any time during the day. The school grounds are open to the public after school hours.

6.12    Other comments related to concerns about limited provision of playground facilities accessible to the disabled, including whether bark is a suitable surface, and included a suggestion for a wheelchair accessible trampoline and a sound feature for kids in wheelchairs or pushchairs.

6.12.1 Both the swing set and ‘space shuttle’ will be installed on soft fall matting to ensure these items are accessible. The ‘space shuttle’ spinner is an inclusive item of play equipment and changes have been made to the mulch pathway so that some of this is now accessible

6.12.2 A trampoline and musical item is outside the budget and scope for this project.

6.13    The following changes have been have been made to the draft plan for consultation, resulting in the final landscape plan for Board approval:

6.13.1 Adjustment of the seat location so that it’s closer to the footpath and placing it on asphalt.

6.13.2 Including an accessible picnic table on asphalt.

6.13.3 Including an accessible grit footpath that provides a circuit around a portion of the nature obstacle course.

6.13.4 Including an extra shade tree.

6.13.5 Both the “space shuttle’ spinner and swing-set will be installed on soft fall matting. The colours of this are to be determined following discussions with The Blind Foundation through detailed design.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.14.1 Park and Waterways Access Policy 2002

6.14.2 Children’s Policy 1998

6.14.3 Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

6.14.4 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) – Comments from a review of the landscape plan included:

·   Recommended maintenance of plants between proposed playground and the Woolston Pavilion. This would reduce opportunities for concealments and other anti-social behaviour in this area.

·   Support for the installation of a window in the Woolston Community Centre for casual surveillance over the proposed playground if funding allows.

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – The cost of implementing the current landscape plan is approximately $133,228.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There may be an increase in the annual park maintenance cost for Woolston Park of $318.89. This is due to an increase of garden beds, play equipment and the cost difference between maintaining wood chip play surface vs. playground matting. The rates and frequencies are based on financial year 2018 figures.

6.17    Funding source – Financial year 2018 - $94,040 – CPMS 34000 – Sports Parks Play and Recreation Facilities Renewal Programme.

Financial year 2019 - $50,000 – CPMS 34000 – Sports Parks Play and Recreation Facilities Renewal Programme.

Legal Implications

6.18    The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS5828:2016 are not a compulsory Standard. However, the Standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for users and administrators.

6.19    No building consents are required as playgrounds are exempt.

6.20    A resource consent may be required for removal and disposal of soil from the proposed works. A soil test has been completed and this shows low level soil contamination. Council has approved to use the ECAN Global Storm water Consent for this project.

Risks and Mitigations

6.21    Risk of increase in costs of play equipment caused through time delay from estimates at the concept plan stage until gaining approval and placing orders.

6.21.1 Treatment: Confirming the estimate and obtaining a final quote. If cost is higher than expected, other suppliers will be researched for better pricing.

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

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - Gaining Community Board approval to proceed with construction.

6.23    Implementation timeframe –

·   Board Approval – 4 December 2017

·   Detailed design – January 2017 – March 2018

·   Construction – June – July 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Removal of play equipment which is near the end of its lifespan thereby removing a potential safety risk to playground users.

·   Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016.

·   The existing playground will remain open during the construction of the new playground and will be removed when the new playground opens.

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Woolston Community Centre does not have visual surveillance over the new playground from inside the centre. Staff are investigating the possibility of installing a new window, however there is no budget for this work.

7.   Option 2 – Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Woolston Park and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Option Description

7.1       The landscape plan (attachment A) for the playground renewal at Woolston Park is not approved and the Community Board request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       No feedback supported this option and this option would not deliver the required asset renewal requirements.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.5       Nil.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – Further funding would be required to cover the cost of a Landscape Architect to draft a new landscape plan and for an Engagement leader for further community consultation.

·   Funding source – Existing project budget, CPMS 34000 Sports Parks Play and Recreation Facilities Renewal Programme. This would have an impact on the total budget available for the playground renewal.

Legal Implications

7.7       There are not considered to be any legal implications arising from this option.

7.8       The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS5828:2016 are not a compulsory standard. However, the standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for users and administrators.

Risks and Mitigations

7.9       Not removing or replacing play equipment runs a risk if injury to users.

7.10    Risk of injury caused by faulty play equipment. This may result in an enquiry (depending on the severity of the injury or death) looking at the safety records and audits undertaken, condition assessment reporting and the Council’s response to mitigate these issues.

7.10.1 Treatment: remove playground equipment that has been assessed as posing a potential risk to users (and not replace) or increase the frequency of safety assessments and maintenance.

7.10.2 Residual risk rating: The rating of the risk is medium.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - gaining Community Board Approval of a revised Landscape Plan.

7.12    Implementation timeframes:

·   Redesign Playground – December 2017 – January 2018

·   Community Board Seminar – February 2018

·   Community Engagement – March 2018

·   Community Board Approval – May/June 2018

·   Detailed design, obtaining resource consent, tendering, placing orders for equipment – June – September 2018

·   Construction completed November 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   The community has the opportunity to consider alternative playground designs.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Delay in providing a safe playground space.

·   Potential for the cost of play equipment to increase.

·   Additional fees for design, consultation and resource consent investigation which may result in less budget being available for play equipment/furniture/landscaping (or alternatively more budget may be required to complete the project).

·   Medium risk of injury to users.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ip369602 - Woolston Park Playground Renewal Landscape Plan - For Board Approval

76

 

 

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

Megan Carpenter - Recreation Planner, Greenspace

Approved By

Brent Smith - Team Leader Asset Planning and Management Parks

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

15.    Ferrymead Park Car Park

Reference:

17/832660

Contact:

Kelly Hansen

kelly.hansen@ccc.govt.nz

03941 8142

 

 

1.   Secretarial Note:

1.         The Board previously considered this report at its 10 October 2017 meeting.  It was decided to let the report lie on the table to allow time for the Board to hold a workshop to consider the Ferrymead Development Plan, the Memorandum of Understanding with the Ferrymead Trust and the future use of the former Tamaki Village site as a potential dog park and for staff to investigate the relocation of the proposed overflow car park to a site closer to the former Tamaki Village Site.  The Board held a seminar on the noted matters on Monday 27 November 2017.

2.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

2.1       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.

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

2.3       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.

3.   Significance

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

3.1.1   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.

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

 

4.   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).

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Regional Parks

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

5.2       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.

5.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

5.3.1   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.

5.4       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.

 

6.   Context/Background

Council Commitments

6.1       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.

6.2       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. 

6.3       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.

6.4       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.

6.5       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.

6.6       ‘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.

6.7       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

6.8       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

6.9       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.

6.10    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.

6.11    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)

6.12    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.

6.13    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.

6.14    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.

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

Demand

6.16    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.

6.17    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.

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

Funding

6.19    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.

 


 

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

Option Description

7.1       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.

7.2       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.

7.3       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.

7.4       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.

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

7.6       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

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

7.8       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

7.9       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

7.10    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.

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

7.12    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.

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.15    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.

7.16    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.

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

Legal Implications

7.18    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    

7.19    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.

7.20    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.

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

Implementation

7.22    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.

7.23    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

7.24    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.

7.25    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.

8.   Option 2 – Deferred Sealed Car park Extension

Option Description

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

8.2       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.

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

Significance

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

8.5       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

8.6       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

8.7       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

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

Financial Implications

8.9       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.

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

Funding source – 2019-28 LTP process.

Legal Implications

8.11    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    

8.12    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.

8.13    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

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

8.15    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

8.16    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.

8.17    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

8.18    A car park is not developed.

Significance

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

8.20    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

8.21    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

8.22    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

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

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

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

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

Financial Implications

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

8.25    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

8.26    Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

8.27    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   

8.28    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

8.29    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

8.30    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.31    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.

8.32    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

87

b

Ferrymead Park proposed car park extension

88

 

 

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

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

16.    Scarborough Park Playground Renewal

Reference:

17/1239802

Contact:

Megan Carpenter

Megan.Carpenter@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6761

 

 

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 landscape plan for the renewal of Scarborough Park playground.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a seminar with the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 18 September 2017.

1.3       The report presents a landscape plan for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park prepared in consultation with the community and affected stakeholders.

1.4       Scarborough Park playground renewal is funded through Christchurch City Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025 and through a donation.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by using the engagement and significance matrix.  Staff have considered the significance of the decision to be made by the Community Board.  Their assessment is that the matter is of medium significance for the following reasons:

2.1.2   There are strong social and environmental benefits in renewing this playground.  It will provide a more extensive play area that encourages the community to come together in a safe area and provide opportunities for children to actively play together outside.

2.1.3   Sumner is a popular destination over the summer period for locals and for those who live outside the area and visiting tourists.  The renewal of this playground will complement the existing facilities in the area and create a positive experience for those using it.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park as per Attachment A of this report

2.         Approve the removal of the macrocapa tree (asset ID 92333) as identified on the landscape plan shown in Attachment A of this report and as per the Scarborough Park Playground Renewal Tree Report (refer Attachment B)

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Garden and Heritage Parks

·     Level of Service: 6.2.11 Proportion of visitors satisfied with the appearance of garden  and heritage parks

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park (including the removal of the macrocarpa tree)  – with the colour of the play equipment to match the paddling pool colours (timber with green, blue, yellow and red)(preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Removal of non-compliant equipment thereby removing potential safety risks to playground users.

·     Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards (NZS 5828:2016).

·     Play equipment will be more accessible to a wider range of users.

·     The amount and types of equipment will increase, providing more options to users.

·     Provision of safety surfacing in accordance with the New Zealand Playground Standards (NZS 5828:2016)

·     Provision of a new accessible path connecting the playground space to the paddling pool and esplanade area.

·     Provision of a destination playground for locals and visitors to the Sumner area.

·     Removing a health and safety risk to park users by removing the large macrocapa tree. The stump, trunk and some of the branches from the tree can be used in the nature play area.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Closure of the playground during the construction period.

·     Does not meet all of the submission requests received throughout the consultation. Discussed in sections 6.5 to 6.45 Community Views and Preferences.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Scarborough Park is a Garden and Heritage Park, located at 147R Esplanade, Scarborough.

5.2       Scarborough Park is a popular park that is well used by the local community and families from around the city. The project team have recognised that the playground is a destination for many families and therefore included a wide range of play equipment suitable for all ages and abilities.

5.3       The Parks Unit work on a 25 year renewal programme for play equipment to keep up with safety standards and compliance with the New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016. This ensures playgrounds are safe and maintain an acceptable level of service. Some of the playground equipment in Scarborough Park has been there for more than 50 years.

5.4       Capital Funding for the playground renewal has been approved in the Long Term Plan 2015-2025 for Financial Year 2017/2018 and Financial Year 2018/2019.

5.5       Council have received a commitment of a donation of $100,000. The donation offsets the capital cost of the project and does not add to the project budget.

5.5.1   A condition of the donation is that Council erect a plaque in the park in recognition of donation. The location of the plaque has been identified on the landscape plan. It will be mounted onto a rock at the entrance to the playground area. The wording on the plaque is yet to be confirmed.

5.6       A tree assessment was completed in July 2017, with 45 trees within Scarborough Park being assessed by an Arborist. Nine trees were assessed as being in poor condition, 31 in fair condition and five in good condition. Of the nine trees in poor condition, one in particular (a large macrocarpa tree – asset ID 92333) has been recommended for removal due to its location right next to the playground area and previous branch failures. Removing this tree removes any ongoing risk to park users and the playground can be built in the most appropriate location to retain as much of the open grass area as possible. A copy of the report on this tree is included as Attachment B. The tree stump, trunk and large branches will be utilised in the nature play area of the playground.

Pre-engagement

5.7       An initial ideas survey was completed in December 2016 to find out what sort of activities park users would like to see in the new playground. The main activities requested were; swinging, climbing, nature play, and sliding. Requests also included; scooter track, shade, extra seating, large games, obstacle course, toddler friendly, slides, swings, climbing net, rocking horse (nostalgic equipment), monkey bars and tunnels.

5.8       The project team visited Our Lady Star of the Sea School in August 2017 to sense check the feedback received from the earlier survey and make sure we were on the right track. We met with four students who provided many great ideas, many of which were incorporated into concept plan that went out for consultation.

5.9       The project team has met with the owners of Ocean’s Café who will be impacted during construction works. They support the plan. The project team will work with them during the construction phase to minimise the disruption to their business.

5.10    Staff attended a Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Seminar on 18 September 2017 to share the concept plan prior to Community Consultation. Staff took on board the feedback received at the Seminar and made some minor changes to the plan for Community Consultation. A copy of the revised plan and the Public Information Leaflet was sent to the Community Board prior to the Consultation period starting.

Community Consultation

5.11    Consultation on the Scarborough Park playground renewal project was undertaken from Monday 16 October to 13 November 2017.  The submission form asked submitters to indicate whether yes they support the concept plans, no they do not support the concept plans or yes they generally support the concept plans but have some concerns.  Submitters were also asked to indicate which colour they would prefer the playground equipment to be.  The options were for neutral colours (mainly timber but with some red and blue), heritage colours (timber with red, blue and white), paddling pool colours (timber with green, blue, yellow and red) or they could indicate that they do not support any of these colours.

5.12    Approximately 800 consultation leaflets (refer attachments C and D) were hand delivered to properties surrounding Scarborough Park, including 190 absentee land owners.  These leaflets were also posted and emailed to 250 key stakeholders.  The project was also posted on the Council’s “Have Your Say” website https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/51 and posted on the Council Facebook and Twitter pages.  Facebook and twitter posts were also used during the consultation period to remind the community of the upcoming drop in session and when the consultation was due to close.

5.13    A “Newsline” article was posted on the Council website on 16 October when the consultation opened and included a link to the “Have Your Say” page https://ccc.govt.nz/news-and-events/newsline/show/2116

5.14    The Sumner Community Residents Association also provided information on this project on their Facebook page, along with regular posts during the consultation period to remind the community to make a submission and to come and talk to staff at the drop in session.

5.15    Temporary signage was installed in three locations within Scarborough Park, to capture park users and encourage them to make a submission and to visit staff at the drop in session.

Temporary signage installed at Scarborough Park

5.16    The project team were available to discuss the project and answer any questions at a drop in session held at Scarborough Park on Saturday 28 October from 10 am to 12 noon.  A free sausage sizzle was held to encourage visitors to complete a submission form.  Some members of the Sumner Community Residents Association were also present to assist with the set up and to speak to members of the community.  There were approximately 30 residents who came along and spoke with the project team during the two hour period.  At this session residents were very supportive of this project and the children were very excited about the new equipment being proposed.  There appeared to be strong support among the children for play equipment that matched the bright colours of the paddling pool.

5.17    At the close of consultation 125 submissions were received with 91 submitters supporting the concept plan, 28 submitters supporting the concept plan but with some concerns, 5 submitters who do not support the concept plan and 1 submitter who did not indicate whether they support or do not support the concept plan.

5.18    In summary, the general distribution of responses were:

Yes – support concept plan

Yes – support concept plan but with concerns

No – do not support concept plan

Not indicated

Total

91 (73%)

28 (22%)

5 (4%)

1 (1%)

125 (100%)

 

5.19    In relation to the colour scheme for the play equipment, at the close of consultation there were 64 submitters who supported colours that matched the paddling pool (timber with green, blue, yellow and red), 41 submitters who supported neutral colours (mainly timber with some red and blue), 12 who supported heritage colours (timber with red, blue and white colours), 5 submitters who did not support any of these colours and 2 submitters who did not mind which colours were chosen.

5.20    In summary, the general distribution of responses in relation to the colour of the play equipment were:

Paddling pool colours

Neutral colours

Heritage colours

Do not support any of these colours

Do not mind which colours

Total

64 (51%)

41 (33%)

12 (10%)

5 (5%)

2 (1%)

125 (100%)

 

5.21    The comments from the 5 submitters who did not support any of these colours, can be summarised as:

Type of comment

Submitter ID #

No. of comments

Colours not complimentary, park is a natural area

9492, 9480, 8406

4

Money for this park should be spent elsewhere

7923

1

 

Total

5

 

5.22    In relation to the location of submissions (for those who provided a suburb), these can be summarised as:

Location submissions came from

No. of submissions from this location

Percentage

Addington

1

0.8%

Bryndwr

1

0.8%

Cashmere

1

0.8%

Christchurch CBD

2

2%

Clifton

3

2%

Hillsborough

1

0.8%

Hoon Hay

3

2%

Mt Pleasant

3

2%

New Brighton

1

0.8%

Opawa

1

0.8%

Papanui

1

0.8%

Redcliffs

6

5%

Richmond

1

0.8%

Richmond Hill

1

0.8%

Russley

1

0.8%

Scarborough

1

0.8%

Somerfield

1

0.8%

Spreydon

1

0.8%

St Albans

2

2%

St Andrews Hill

1

0.8%

Sumner

91

73%

Woolston

1

0.8%

 

 

 

Total

125

100%

 

5.23    The majority of submissions have been received from Sumner with 73% and then Redcliffs with 5%.   The remaining other 22% of submissions are spread across the city.

5.24    All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.  All submissions with names but without address and contact details are available publicly online at https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/51

5.25    All submitters from this consultation (who provided contact details) have been advised of the results of the community feedback, the staff recommendation, the Community Board meeting details and how they can request to speak at the meeting if they wish to do so.  They were also provided with the updated landscape plan for Scarborough Park.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at Scarborough Park (including the removal of the macrocapa tree) with the colour of the play equipment to match the paddling pool colours (timber with green, blue, yellow and red (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To renew the playground at Scarborough Park as shown in Attachment A. The proposed equipment will consist of the following items:

6.1.1   Nature play area – this is an area to explore with boulders, stepping posts, tree stump, logs and low planting. In this area children can develop their balance and coordination skills and become familiar with the different textures. A picnic table is also proposed for this area. We are looking at options to refurbish the old rocking horse and install it in the Nature Play area as a static item.

6.1.2   Climbing tower with slides – The tower is 5.8m high and includes 3 slides (two wiggly slides and one double wave slide), a vertical life buoy climbing net and binoculars/telescope. The colour of the tower will complement the paddling pool with timber with green, blue and yellow features as shown on the landscape plan.

6.1.3   Eagles lair climbing net – the eagles lair climbing net includes a spiral path, leading up to the massive 1900mm diameter basket at the centre, two 1000mm diameter baskets, one climbing ladder, one climbing net and two climbing chimneys. The eagle’s lair is 6m high and the top basket will provide a great view across the park. The eagle’s lair rope and baskets will be bright colours.

6.1.4   Triple swing set – The swing set will include two standard swings, one basket swing, and two infant swings (one with a higher back for extra support). The frame will be timber and the chain guards will be in the paddling pool colour scheme.

6.1.5   Rocking horse – A modern day version of the old favourite that complies with all the relevant playground standards. The rocking horse will be red/cream as shown on the landscape plan.

6.1.6   Mouse wheel – this mouse wheel will be the first to be installed into a Christchurch City Council owned park. Very popular with young and old, the mouse wheel provides a challenge while encouraging skills like hand and foot coordination and problem solving. The mouse house will have a timber frame with a coloured insert that complements that paddling pool colours.

6.1.7   Dancing snake rope swing – four large 160mm braided ropes swing and rotate around a centre pole providing a swinging/spinning experience for uses. Timber cross beams with coloured caps

6.1.8   Spring toys/rockers – beach themed spring toys that provide a rocking/bouncing experience. Suitable for young and old and those with mobility issues. 

6.1.9   Inclusive carousel – The carousel is suitable for wheelchairs and pushchairs as well as those who wish to stand or sit as they spin around.

6.1.10 Scooter path – a 1.2m wide asphalt path suitable for scooters or balance bikes.

6.1.11 Playground safety surfacing – rubber safety matting will be used throughout the playground. This specialist product lasts approximately twenty years and makes the play space more accessible. It requires less maintenance than loose safety surfacing (bark chip).

6.1.12 Furniture – three additional inclusive picnic tables with central legs will be installed in the playground area. Other picnic tables within the park will be tidied up and remain in their current locations. Four additional park seats will be put in (some with arm rests). All other existing park furniture will remain in the park as shown on the landscape plan.

6.1.13 One Big Belly Solar bin will be installed into Scarborough Park as part of the Smart Cities Programme trial until February 2022. It will be then up to the Parks Unit to decide if they want to take over the lease on a permanent basis. The bin is equipped with a small compactor powered by a solar cell and a daily data logging system. They are independent of the power grid and can pack up to six times the volume of standard litter bins. The contractor is notified when the bin reaches 80% capacity. The bins are 100% seagull/rodent proof.  There are numerous customer service requests (CSR’s) relating to rubbish in Scarborough Park. The Big Belly Bins have been trialled with great success in New Brighton and the number of complaints about rubbish have reduced significantly.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is medium 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.

6.4       The project team have discussed this project with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited and have been provided with the following feedback:

The committee confirmed the proposal appears to be very positive which will improve the current playground area.

The committee were thankful for the opportunity to have input into the proposed playground upgrade works but have respectfully declined the offer on this occasion. The committee are however supportive of the community led approach being undertaken by Council.

The committee do not wish to meet with the Christchurch City Council as they are comfortable with the proposals and there are no major concerns in regards to the provided design concept and do not require further information.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Park users are specifically affected by this option due to the disruption the physical works will have when the old equipment is removed and replaced.  There are 91 submitters (73%) who support this project and 64 (51%) submitters support a colour scheme that matches the paddling pool (timber with green, blue, yellow and red).

6.6       Please refer to sections 5.7 – 5.16 which discusses how affected parties were made aware of this project.

Landscape plan

6.7       For those who indicated that they supported the concept plan, the most common comments were about:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Requests for additional equipment

8

9433, 9018, 8578, 8509, 8489, 8488, 8474, 7942

Rubbish bins

5

9530, 9187, 8578, 8004, 7847

Shade

3

9433, 8500, 7847

Seating

3

9395, 9018, 8019

Dogs

3

9395, 9018, 7975

Safety

3

8509, 8003, 7975

Trees

1

9295

 

Themes from those who support the concept plan

6.8       The common themes around supporting the concept plan at Scarborough Park relate to requests for additional equipment, rubbish bins, shade, seating, dogs and safety.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.9       Requests for additional equipment

There were 8 comments requesting additional equipment to be added to the design.  These items included toddler trampolines and bouncers, a train, car, fire engine or digger for sitting and climbing on, back to back swings, more swings in the swing set, an additional drinking fountain at the other end of the park, exercise equipment, a water feature, old tractors or an old train for climbing, a request to exclude the mouse wheel and put a skate ramp in instead and surfboard lockers. 

“Toddler friendly bouncers and trampolines.  I’ve been on some in Adelaide recently that were built into the ground and the bouncers can have parents sat alongside” Submitter # 9433.

Trampolines are not suitable for this site due to ground conditions and drainage issues in the park. Including additional equipment is outside the scope of this project.

6.10    Rubbish bins

There were 5 comments related to rubbish bins in the park, with 4 of these requesting additional rubbish bins and one submitter asking for the park to be rubbish free and have people encouraged to be responsible for their own rubbish.

“Lots of rubbish bins needed around the area!!” Submitter #8578

A Big Belly Bin is going to be installed (refer 6.1.13). The bin can hold six times the amount of a standard bin as they self-compact. 

6.11    Shade

There were 3 comments made requesting additional shade to be provided in the park.

“Please consider more shade.  Especially if removing a large tree”. Submitter # 7847

Five additional trees have been added to the landscape plan for shade and play opportunities.

6.12    Seating

There were 3 comments made requesting additional seating in the park.  The requests related to seating being placed near the rear of the café as it is sheltered and included requests for picnic tables and park seating that is more comfortable for older people.

“More comfortable seating for older people.  The picnic table bench seats are not always suitable for some” Submitter #8019

Two picnic tables that were originally proposed in the play area have been sited in a revised location to create a new picnic area to the north of the park, adjacent to the entrance to the splash pad area. The picnic table that was proposed in the nature play area will remain in the same location.

6.13    Dogs

There were 3 comments made in relation to dogs in the park.  This included a request for fencing to keep the dogs out and fines and additional signage.

“There needs to be substantial fines clearly on the signage deterring owners from ignoring the ‘no dogs allowed’” Submitter #9018

CCC’s Dog Control Policy 2016 lists Scarborough Park as prohibited to dogs due to the high visitor number and public health and safety. Through the detailed design of Scarborough Park, staff will investigate improvements to signage to ensure clear messages to the community. Concerns have also been passed onto the Animal Control Team to enforce the bylaw.

6.14    Safety

There were 3 safety related comments from submitters.  These comments related to concerns about the safety of children in the park with the existing open drain.

“Please enclose the park with a fence so children cannot run out into the roads, to the paddling pool or fall into the open drain.  The fact that the current park is not fenced has always been an issue” Submitter #8003

A new pedestrian gate is proposed to be installed at the park entrance next to the waste water pump station. The open drain is outside the scope of the project, however we have passed on concerns to CCC’s transport team for further comment.

6.15    Trees

There was 1 comment in relation to the Macrocarpa tree that is proposed for removal.  This submission related to supporting the removal of the tree.

“Pleased remove Macrocarpa – lots of magpies in there – swooping at kids”.  Submitter #9295

The project team has recommended to the Community Board to remove the macrocarpa tree due to health and safety.

6.16    For those who indicated that they supported the concept plan but had some concerns, the most common comments were about:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Requests for additional equipment

10

9471, 9443, 9409, 9296, 8875, 8576, 8513, 8457, 8291, 8000

Trees

7

9471, 9163, 8745, 8075, 7964, 7874, 7736

Seating

6

9471, 9409, 9296, 8568, 8331, 7990

Safety

6

9471, 8003, 7975, 8509, 9163, 8403,

 

Themes from those who support the concept plan, but have some concerns

6.17    The common themes around supporting the concept plan but having some concerns at Scarborough Park relate to requests for additional equipment, trees, seating and safety.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.18    Requests for additional equipment

There were 10 comments requesting additional equipment to be added to the design.  These items included increasing the number of swings, water feature with a shallow channel through the nature play area, bike parking facilities, skate ramp, additional ramps over the esplanade wall, separated play areas by age, a flying fox, remove or at least repaint the rocking horse proposed, more toddler items, in-ground trampolines, skate park, pump track and imaginative play equipment like at Port Melbourne in Melbourne.

“We think the general concept and choice in play equipment is fabulous!  We would like to see a couple more toddler friendly options though i.e. a slide that is also suitable for young ones – without taking the larger slides away of course.  Perhaps a couple of in-ground trampolines would be good too?” Submitter #8457

Including additional equipment is outside the scope of the project. The project team is looking at options to restore the rocking horse and install it in the nature play area as a static item of equipment.

6.19    Trees

There were 7 comments relating to the removal of the Macrocarpa tree in the park.  These 7 submitters did not support the removal of this tree, this was mostly due to how the tree looked visually and because it provided useful shade in the park.

“…I disagree with the removal of the tree, which you are saying would be a health and safety concern, for two reasons – firstly the removal of a mature tree without replacing it is not environmentally conscious; secondly there is limited shade in the park as it is, and you would be removing the main source of shade without replacing it”. Submitter #8075

Due to health and safety reasons, it has been recommended that Council removes the Macrocarpa Tree as per the landscape plan. It is proposed that five additional trees will be planted to provide shade and play opportunities.

6.20    Seating

There were 6 comments made requesting additional seating in the park.  The requests related to having more seating and picnic tables in sheltered areas, to ensure there were accessible seating with even surfacing and to have seating in quiet areas away from the playground for elderly users of the park.

“I would like to see more picnic tables (with seats) situated away from the playground.  Many older people use these, but want to be in quieter areas of the park.  Many residents from the nearby Edith Cavell Rest Home use the park on a regular basis”. Submitter #8568

Refer to comments made in regard to seating in section 6.12 of this report.

6.21    Safety

There were 6 safety related comments from submitters.  These comments related to concerns about the safety of children in the park with the existing open drain.

“The drain that runs alongside has a step up to the wall this is easily climbed by an athletic 18 month old with a 2 m drop to rocks and mud, this could do with a wire fence at the top”.  Submitter #9471

Refer to comments made in regard to safety in section 6.14 of this report.

6.22    For those who indicated that they do not support concept plan, the comments were about:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Keep the area green and natural

2

9492, 9480

Trees

1

8406

Reconditioning of the play equipment

1

9452

Funding should be spent elsewhere

1

7923

 

Themes from those who do not support the concept plan

6.23    The common themes around not supporting the concept plan at Scarborough Park relate to keeping the area green and natural, trees, reconditioning the equipment instead and a suggestion to spend the funding for the park elsewhere.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.24    Keep the area green and natural

There were 2 comments made by submitters who would prefer to keep the existing play equipment instead as the new equipment will affect the green and tranquil nature of the area.

“This park is a real oasis in Sumner with spreading trees and above, good shelter from the sun and other foliage natural colours predominate”. Submitter #9480

The existing play equipment has reached the end of its lifespan and needs to be renewed. There will still be open space available for informal play and picnicking. The play equipment shown on the landscape plan was selected based on the feedback Council received during the survey that was carried out in 2016 and a visit to a local primary school.

6.25    Trees

There was 1 comment in relation to retaining the Macrocarpa tree in the park.

“Reading that the grandest of the trees is possibly going to be removed makes the proposal null and void to me – this opinion is shared by my associates and friends that I take to the playground for picnics and walks on a regular basis” Submitter #8406

Refer to comments made in regard to safety in section 6.19 of this report.

6.26    Reconditioning of some of the play equipment

There was 1 comment in relation to reconditioning the play equipment instead of removing it.

“Given the heritage value of these items, why is Council so quick to pull them out when they could be restored?” Submitter #9452

The project team is looking at options to restore the rocking horse and install it in the nature play area as a static item of equipment. The equipment no longer complies with the New Zealand Playground Standards (NZS 5828:2016), and is ineffective due to cost to restore.

6.27    Funding should be spent elsewhere

There was 1 comment made suggesting that the funding for this park would be better spent in another park.

“Please do the cheapest option.  The Council has looming bankruptcy, places like Brighton or Woolston need the money.  Please be honourable and make the point to your higher ups that there is no need for more money to be wasted on a very rich community”. Submitter #7923

The funding has been approved through the Long Term Plan 2015 – 2025. New Brighton Playground and Woolston Playground are both being restored this financial year.

6.28    In summary across all of the submissions relating to the concept plan, the most common themes were:

 

 

Colour scheme for the play equipment

6.29    There were 64 (51%) submitters who support a colour scheme that matches the paddling pool (timber with green, blue, yellow and red) for the play equipment.

6.30    For those who indicated that they support paddling pool colours and who specifically commented on these colours the most common comments were:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Bright colours are attractive to children

6

9018, 8576, 8401, 8141, 8020, 7743

Colours are appropriate for the area

2

8693, 7947

Mix of colours is good

1

9295

 

Themes from those who supported colours that match the paddling pool

6.31    The common themes from submitters who supported paddling pool colours for the play equipment related to bright colours being attractive to children, the colours suiting the area and that the mix of colours was good.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.32    Bright colours are attractive to children

There were 6 submitters who made comments about the bright colours that match the paddling pool being attractive to children.

“Colour is appealing to children – my grandchildren prefer it”.  Submitter #9018

6.33    Colours are appropriate for the area

There were 2 submitters who made comments about the colours being appropriate for the area.

“I love the colour palette chosen for the paddling pool and it would tie in well if the playground was the same, fun and bright.  These colours also match the landscape of the ocean and trees really well”.  Submitter #7947

6.34    Mix of colours is good

There was 1 submitter who commented that they liked the mix of colours.

“Colour is great with mix of natural materials”.  Submitter #9295

6.35    There were 41 (33%) submitters who support a neutral colour scheme (mainly timber with some red and blue) for the play equipment.

6.36    For those who indicated that they support neutral colours and who specifically commented on these colours the most common comments were:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Do not support bright colours

3

8476, 8398, 8513

Prefer colours that match the coastal pathway project

2

9147, 8069

 

Themes from those who support neutral colours

6.37    The common themes from submitters who supported neutral colours for the play equipment related to a preference to colours that match the coastal pathway and submitters not supporting bright colours. The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.38    Do not support bright colours

There were 3 submitters who did not support any bright colours in the playground equipment.

“The paddling pool colours are not popular among locals, it would be nice to see the playground more neutrally coloured”.  Submitter #7744

The colour scheme that was preferred through consultation was the paddling pool colours with 51% support. Therefore the project team will use these colours.

6.39    Prefer colours that match the coastal pathway project

There were 2 submitters who had a preference for the colours matching the coastal pathway palette.

“The Christchurch Coastal Pathway Group (CCPG) has been very keen to have a unified look along the length of the pathway, as per the developed design.  Therefore it would be great if you could use the CCPG furniture palette and planting palette”.  Submitter #8069

The colour scheme that was preferred through consultation was the paddling pool colours with 51% support. Therefore the project team will use these colours.

6.40    There were 12 (10%) submitters who support heritage colours (timber with red, blue and white) for the play equipment.

6.41    For those who indicated that they support heritage colours and who specifically commented on these colours the most common comments were:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Colours a good blend

2

8080, 8006

Support natural colours and textures

1

7843

 

Themes from those who support heritage colours

6.42    The common themes from submitters who supported heritage colours for the play equipment related to the colours being a good blend and support for natural colours and textures. The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.43    Colours a good blend

There were two submitters who commented on the heritage colours being a good blend of colours.

“I like vibrant colours for kid’s playground equipment but I also like nature’s natural colours.  I think you have a fairly good balance of both”.  Submitter #8006

6.44    Support natural colours and textures

There was one submitter who was in support of natural colours and textures.

“Natural colours and textures where possible, based on the colours that have existed in the physical environment for years”.  Submitter #7843

6.45    Refer to section 5.21 of this report in regard to submitters who did not support any of these colour choices for the play equipment.

Changes made following consultation

6.46    The following changes have been made to the landscape plan following consultation

6.46.1 The colour option for the playground will be paddling pool colours (Timber with green, blue, yellow and red).

6.46.2 A new pedestrian gate will be installed at the entrance next to the Waste Water Pump Station.

6.46.3 Plant beds around the play areas will be extended and five new trees will be added for shade and play opportunities.

6.46.4 Two picnic tables that were originally proposed in the play area have been sited in a revised location to create a new picnic area to the north of the park, adjacent to the entrance to the paddling pool area. The picnic table that was proposed in the nature play area will remain in the same location.

6.46.5 Four new park benches have been added to the design, some with armrests.

6.46.6 A Big Belly bin has been included in an existing northern plant bed.

6.46.7 A rock with a plaque to recognise a donation to the playground upgrade has been included in the design adjacent to the play area. The wording on the plaque is yet to be confirmed.

6.46.8 Location of existing features have been labelled such as rubbish bins, BBQ and drinking fountain.

6.46.9 Nature play area has been amended to accommodate large boughs from macrocarpa tree to be removed and also to accommodate the existing rocking horse in a static position.

6.46.10  Areas of existing vegetation to be removed or pruned to create sightlines across the playground.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.47.1 Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

6.47.2 Children’s Policy 1998

6.47.3 Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

6.47.4 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles

Financial Implications

6.48    Cost of Implementation – the cost of implementing the current landscape plan is approximately $598,000 (refer to funding breakdown in 6.50 below).

6.49    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the annual maintenance costs for the playground will reduce by approximately $7,858 per year, due to the reduction in area classed as Ornamental Garden bed and a reduction of turf area.

6.50    Funding source –

·   $598,660 – CPMS 1386 – Scarborough Park Playground Renewal
FY 2017/18 $353,945 + donation of $100,000 = total of $453,945

FY 2018/19 $144,715

·   Council have received a commitment of a donation of $100,000. The donation offsets the capital cost of the project and does not add to the project budget.

Legal Implications

6.51    The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016 are not a compulsory Standard. However, the Standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for users and administrators.

6.52    Building Consent Exemption will be required due to the height of the tower. This will be applied for as part of the Detailed Design phase.

6.53    A Resource Consent may be required to remove the macrocapa tree and for working within 5m of a tree. This will be applied for as part of the Detailed Design phase if required.

Risks and Mitigations

6.54    There is a risk of increase in costs of play equipment caused through time delay from estimates at the concept plan stage until gaining approval and placing orders.

6.54.1 Treatment: conforming the estimate and obtaining a final quote. If cost is higher than expected, other suppliers will be researched for better pricing.

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

Implementation

6.55    Implementation dependencies - gaining Community Board approval to proceed with construction.

6.56    Implementation timeframe –

·   Community Board Approval December 2017

·   Detailed Design, obtaining consents (Resource Consent and Building Consent Exemption) and tendering – December 2017 to March 2018

·   Construction– April to June 2018

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.57    The advantages of this option include:

·   Removal of non-compliant equipment thereby removing potential safety risks to playground users.

·   Provision of new playground equipment that meets the current New Zealand Playground Standards (NZS 5828:2016).

·   Play equipment will be more accessible to a wider range of users.

·   The amount and types of equipment will increase, providing more options to users.

·   Provision of safety surfacing in accordance with the New Zealand Playground Standards (NZS 5828:2016)

·   Provision of a new accessible path connecting the playground space to the paddling pool and esplanade area.

·   Provision of a destination playground for locals and visitors to the Sumner area.

6.58    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Closure of the playground space during the construction period.

·   Does not meet all of the submission requests received throughout the consultation. Discussed in sections 6.5 to 6.45 Community Views and Preferences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Option Description

7.1       The landscape plan attachment A for the playground renewal at Scarborough Park is not approved and the Community Board request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is medium 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.

7.4       Please refer to section 6.3 of the report for the feedback received from Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited in relation to this project.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The local community and park users from across Christchurch are specifically affected by this option due to the close proximity to this playground and because it is seen as a destination playground. 

7.6       At the close of consultation 125 submissions were received with 91 submitters supporting the concept plan and 28 submitters supporting the concept plan but with some concerns.

7.7       There were no submissions or comments during the consultation period that specifically supported this option and this option would not deliver the required asset renewal requirement.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.8.1   Inconsistency – not meeting Levels of Service

7.8.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not complying with the New Zealand Playground Standards.

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – additional cost to re-design and engage with the community again, plus the cost of renewing the playground. It is likely that one or more pieces of equipment would need to be removed or the size of the playground reduced to fit within the available budget (or additional budget allocated).

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – higher maintenance costs would continue while the design is changes and the community engaged with.

7.11    Funding source –

·   $598,660 – CPMS 1386 – Scarborough Park Playground Renewal
FY 2017/18 $353,945 + donation of $100,000 = total of $453,945

FY 2018/19 $144,715

·   Council have received a commitment of a donation of $100,000.

Legal Implications

7.12    The New Zealand Playground Standards NZS 5828:2016 are not a compulsory Standard. However, the Standards have been put in place to provide a form of safety for users and administrators.

Risks and Mitigations

7.1       Not removing or replacing equipment runs a risk of injury to users,

7.2       Risk of injury caused by faulty play equipment. This may result in an enquiry (depending on the severity of the injury or death) looking at safety records and audits undertaken, condition assessment reporting and the Council’s response to mitigate these issues.

7.2.1   Treatment: remove playground equipment that has been assessed as posing a potential risk to users (and not replace). Increase the frequency of safety assessments.

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

Implementation

7.3       Implementation dependencies - gaining Community Board approval of a revised Landscape Plan.

7.4       Implementation timeframe –

·   Redesign playground – December 2017 – February 2018

·   Community Board Seminar – March 2018

·   Community Engagement – March-May 2018

·   Community Board Approval – June 2018

·   Detailed design, obtaining Resource Consent, tendering, placing orders for equipment – July – September 2018

·   Construction – October – December 2018 (or alternatively to avoid the peak summer season, April – June 2019).

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.5       The advantages of this option include:

·   The community has the opportunity to consider an alternative playground design.

7.6       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Delays in providing safe playground space and meeting Levels of Service

·   Potential for the cost of play equipment to increase

·   Increased design fees may result in less budget being available for play equipment/furniture/landscaping (or alternatively, more budget may be required to complete the project).

·   Medium to high risk of injury to users.

·   Construction would potentially fall over the busy summer period or be delayed further so the playground can be kept open over the summer.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Scarborough Park Playground Renewal Landscape Plan - For Board Approval - November 2017 - LP370602-1

110

b

Scarborough Park Playground Renewal - Tree Report - 10 November 2017

112

c

Scarborough Playground Renewal Project Information Leaflet

122

d

Scarborough Playground Submission form

126

 

 

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

Megan Carpenter - Recreation Planner, Greenspace

Marcy McCallum - Project Manager

Tara King - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 


 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

17.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Adoption of the 2018 Meeting Schedule

Reference:

17/1392464

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

941 6601

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks the Council to adopt a schedule setting out the proposed times and dates of ordinary meetings of the Council and its committees, subcommittees and working parties for 2018.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Adopt the following meeting schedule until 30 December 2018:

Monday 29 January, 3pm

Wednesday 14 February, 10am

Monday 26 February, 3pm

Wednesday 14 March, 10am

Wednesday 18 April, 10am

Monday 30 April, 3pm

Wednesday 16 May, 10am

Monday 28 May, 3pm

Wednesday 20 June, 10am

Monday 2 July, 3pm

Wednesday 15 August, 10am

Monday 3 September, 3pm

Wednesday 19 September, 10am

Monday 1 October, 3pm

Wednesday 17 October, 10am

Monday 29 October, 3pm

Wednesday 14 November, 10am

Monday 3 December, 3pm

 

2.         Delegate to the Community Governance Manager the ability to make any changes to the schedule as necessary to meet circumstances as required.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       In order that the business of the Community Board can be conducted in an orderly manner, and to allow for public notification of meetings to be given in compliance with the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), it is recommended that the Board adopt a schedule of meetings.

3.2       It is recognised that events may arise, or circumstances change that would mean the schedule may need to be revised or additional meetings added as required. It is therefore proposed that the Community Governance Manager be delegated the authority to make changes to the schedule in order to accommodate business needs. Any additional meetings will be appropriately publicly notified in compliance with the LGOIMA and Local Government Act 2002.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

18.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2017/18

Reference:

17/1392499

Contact:

Liz Beaven

liz.beaven@ccc.govt.nz

039416601

 

 

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 delegation arrangements for the making of any required decisions (including applications for funding) that would otherwise be dealt with by the Board, covering the period following its final scheduled meeting for the year on 4 December 2017 until its next ordinary meeting on 29 January 2017.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision(s) in this report 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.         Appoint a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and at least two Board members, to be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for the period following its ordinary meeting on 4 December 2017 up until the Board resumes normal business in 2018.

2.         Reports back to the Board, the application of any such delegation, for record purposes.

3.         Notes that any meeting of the Recess Committee will be publicised and details forwarded to all Board members.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       In previous years it has been the practice of the previous Board to resolve to provide delegated authority to a Recess Committee comprising the Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson and one other member available (or their nominees from the Board), to make any needed decisions on the Board’s behalf during the Christmas/New Year holiday period.

4.2       Board members are not individually named for the Board’s Recess Committee.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for 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

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

19.    Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report

Reference:

17/737587

Contact:

Shupayi Mpunga

Shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 6605

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

 

2.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Area Update.

2.         Appoint a member to represent the Board at a joint meeting of Community Boards and Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider a report, receive any deputations, and make a recommendation to the Council on the Summit Road – Proposed Prohibited Times on Road Restrictions.

3.         Give guidance to staff about how many Light Bulb Moments Fund applications the Board are prepared to accept from one applicant in a 12 month period.

 

 

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information reporting back on Community Board matters

3.1.1   375 Ferry Road Liquor Licence Application – an application was forward to the Chairperson of the District Licensing Committee asking for the Board to appear and be heard at the hearing of liquor licence application on 22 November 2017.

3.1.2   Board Priorities Action Updates – at the Board’s 2 October 2017 meeting the Board requested staff to list on each Area Report progress on specific Board Projects and Action Requests.  Please refer to Attachment A.

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

3.2.1   Summit Road - Proposed Prohibited Times On Road Restrictions

The Council’s consultation on the proposal to restrict vehicular access on the Summit Road has been completed. 

A staff report on the matter is to be presented to a joint Community Boards and Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee meeting for consideration.

The relevant Boards (Banks Peninsula, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton, Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Spreydon-Cashmere) are each asked to appoint a member to attend the joint Boards and Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee meeting to consider a report, hear any deputations, and make a recommendation to the Council on the matter.

·   Accordingly, the Board is asked to consider appointing a member as its representative to attend and participate at the above joint meeting.

3.2.2   The Board continues to receive strategic, technical and procedural advice mainly through an ongoing programme of Board seminars held monthly.

3.3       Board area Consultations/Engagement

3.3.1   The following consultations are open to the community within the Community Board Area:

Thanks for the Memories Lancaster Park

22 November 2017 - 22 December 2017

Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Projects

22 November 2017 - 13 December 2017

Christchurch Waterways: Do they matter to you?

15 November 2017 - 8 December 2017

Bays Area Skate Project

29 January 2018 - 26 February 2018

 

3.4       Submission Opportunities

3.4.1   There are no submission opportunities at the time of writing this report.

3.5       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.5.1   There was a workshop scheduled for 29 November 2017 involving the Community Board Chairs and Deputies with the Mayor and Councillors, to continue discussions around priorities towards developing the next draft Long Term Plan.

3.6       Development of Civil Defence Emergency Plans

3.6.1   Within the work stream of Council staff there is a city-wide development called the Community Resilience Planning Project.  A presentation will be made to the Council later this year and then workshops will be held with Community Boards in the New Year which will provide an overview of the project, processes and timeframes.

3.6.2   Bays Area Community Resilience & Preparedness Project – Please find attached the Monthly Report for October 2017 from this project. (Attachment B)

3.7       Requests for information from Board meeting on Newsline

3.7.1   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in Newsline.

3.8       Significant Board matters of interest to raise at Council

Members are invited to suggest significant matters from the meeting to be raised by the Chair at the next Council meeting (Community Board reports) on Thursday 7 December 2017.

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

4.1       At the Board’s 20 September 2017 meeting the following Strengthening Communities Funding Applications were referred to the Community Reliance Partnership Fund and will be put to the Council for consideration.  Staff will update the Board once a report has gone to Council: (Attachment C).

4.1.1   Avebury House Trust for Community Development 2018 and Heritage regeneration (staff recommendation of $35,000);

4.1.2  

4.1.3   Te Whare Roopu o Oterepo - Waltham Community Cottage for The Cottage Project (staff recommendation of $47,500); and

4.1.4   Sydenham Quarter –Promote Sydenham Project (staff recommendation is a decline).

5.   Significant Community Issues

Waltham Youth Research 2017

5.1       Status

5.1.1   The Waltham Youth Research was conducted by interviewing 5 key stakeholder groups in Waltham as well as a survey to local youth at Waltham School. The findings of this research along with recommendations to the Community Board on ways to move forward will be reported in the first quarter of 2018.

Proposed Alcohol Ban for Linwood Village and Doris Lusk Park

5.2       Status

5.2.1   A report from the Community Board will be presented to the Council’s 7 December 2017 meeting requesting the Council to:

Direct staff to install close circuit cameras on the Gloucester Street/Stanmore Road intersection to improve safety of the community in those areas.

Request staff to investigate a permanent alcohol ban in public places in the Linwood Village area including Doris Lusk Reserve.

Request staff to urgently investigate a temporary alcohol ban in public places in the immediate area of the Linwood Village including Doris Lusk Reserve to take effect for the 2017/18 summer onwards.

6.   Major Community and/or Infrastructure Projects

6.1       Community Facilities

6.1.1   Woolston Community Facility - Community Board members attended the celebration on 27 November of the sod turning for the new facility being built in the heart of Woolston Village by the Council.  It is expected that construction will be completed by July 2018.

6.2       Partnerships with the community and organisations

6.2.1   Shape Your Place Toolkit is now live https://ccc.govt.nz/culture-and-community/shape-your-place.  This toolkit is intended for groups, or individuals, who would like to shape and enhance their neighbourhood and need ideas, information or inspiration about how to go about it.

6.3       Events Report Back

6.3.1   SummerTimes is back and packed full of events to relax outdoors with family and friends and enjoy the summer months in Christchurch.  Includes all community events supported by the Board.

6.3.2   Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE) - Tayla Reece has been appointed as the LYFE Coordinator for 2018.  Tayla will be working with Linwood youth and youth focused organisations to plan and deliver LYFE at Linwood Park on 17 March 2018.

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

7.1       The next update will be in February 2018.

8.   Community Board funding budget overview and clarification

8.1       Light Bulb Moments Fund 2017/18 – The Board resolved at the 20 September 2017 meeting to allocate $4,000 to the Light Bulb Moments Fund for 2017/18.  Nine applications have been received, approved and paid by 22 November 2017.  These grants totalling $1,877 have been paid and leave $2,123 remaining. 

8.1.1   Awatea Christensen has reported that the $250 was used on lino flooring and sports flooring tape necessary for the breakdance community to gather weekly, practice and teach their craft to the wider community of all ages and has been very successful. 

8.1.2   Hagley Community College Preschool Trust have reported they have purchased the Māori and te reo resources and these have been instrumental in building teacher confidence and knowledge of bi-cultural practices.  The resources support Māori tamariki to be culturally proud and experience educational success, as well as strengthening every child’s knowledge of Māori culture and their confidence to participate in a culture different to their own.

8.1.3   Woolston Community Centre held the Woolston Twilight Healthy Living Event on 3rd November 2017. This was a very successful event with over 300 people of all age groups attending. It gave the Woolston Community Centre the opportunity to unite with Te Waka Unua School in creating a happy, healthy early evening event for all and may become an annual event.

8.1.4   Woolston Community Centre has purchased craft materials for the weekly craft group that is catering for about eight people including people with intellectual and physical disabilities.

8.2       Staff would like the Board to consider how many Light Bulb Moments Fund applications an individual or organisation can make per financial year.  Staff recommend that two applications per individual/organisation may be made before alternative funding avenues are identified.

8.3       Total of unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $238,739.  Funding table is Attachment D.

8.3.1   Discretionary Response Fund unallocated funding for 2017/18 is $220,821.

8.3.2   Youth Development Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $5,100.

8.3.3   Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated funding for 2016/17 is $2,188.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Action Updates 4 December 2017

138

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Strengthening Communities 2017/18 Funding Applications Referred to the Community Resilence Partnership Fund

142

c

Bays Area Community Resilience & Preparedness Project - October 2017 Update

146

d

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund 4 December 2017

148

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Meg Logan - Governance Support Officer

Louise McLean - Community Support Officer

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

  


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

PDF Creator

 


Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

04 December 2017

 

 

20.  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.