Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 5 April 2018

Time:                                    9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Jamie Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

29 March 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Christopher Turner-Bullock

Committee Advisor

941 8233

christopher.turner@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

Note:  The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policy unless and until adopted.  If you require further information relating to any reports, please contact the person named on the report.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Papanui-Innes Community Board

5.       Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council............................................................ 7

Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board

6.       Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council.............................. 15

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

7.       Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council..................................... 21

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

8.       Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council..................................................... 27

9.       Queenspark Drive - Proposed Queenspark School Variable Speed Limit (School Zone). 35

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

10.     Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council................................... 45

11.     Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration........................................................ 55

12.     Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan.. 79

Banks Peninsula Community Board

13.     Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council....................................................... 99

Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board

14.     Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council.............................................. 117

Joint Meeting - Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Board

15.     Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road 121

16.     Mayor's Monthly Report...................................................................................................... 161

17.     Chief Executive's Report....................................................................................................... 169

Regulatory Performance Committee

18.     Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration.............................................................. 179

19.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 196  

 

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

5.        Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

18/256247

Presenter(s):

Ali Jones, Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Papanui-Innes Community Board held meetings on 23 February, 9 March and 23 March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·     A request that the water logging of the Rutland Street Reserve and maintenance issues, as raised in the correspondence from David Brown, be referred to the Land Drainage Recovery Department and the Parks Maintenance Department respectively. Information was requested on the maintenance schedule for this reserve.

·     Approval of the implementation of the Stage 1 planting at the north and south ends of the Bridgestone Reserve through funding from the Three Waters Team for reactive works on new stormwater developments.

·     Approval that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Harewood Road commencing at its intersection with Sails Street and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of 22 metres.

·     Approval that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Sails Street commencing at its intersection with Harewood Road and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 11 metres.

·     Approval of the following alterations to parking and stopping on McFaddens Road:

that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of McFaddens Road commencing at its intersection with Redwood Place and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 18 metres.

that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southeast side of McFaddens Road commencing at its intersection with Redwood Place and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 25 metres.

that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the southwest side of Redwood place commencing at its intersection with McFaddens Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 12 metres.

Revoking of all parking and stopping restrictions on the northeast side of Redwood place commencing at its intersection with McFaddens Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

Approve that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the northeast side of Redwood place commencing at its intersection with McFaddens Road and extending in a south easterly direction for a distance of 27 metres.

·     Approval that the parking and stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Perry Street commencing at a point 68 metres west of its intersection with Rayburn Avenue and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of six metres.

·     A formal request, as a result of complaints from residents, that the Parking Compliance Unit at the Council actively enforce the regulations on parking over the fire hydrants on Perry Street and that staff liaise with local police to ensure that this enforcement continues after hours.

·     Approval of a new vehicular access to the Homebase Shopping Centre from Briggs Road including associated road markings and:

A central solid median island to be constructed on Briggs Road approximately 126 metres to the west of the intersection of Marshland Road/Briggs Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Revokes the existing parking restrictions on the northern side of Briggs Road that extends 94 metres west of the intersection of Marshland Road/Briggs Road.

Approves parking restrictions on the northern side of Briggs Road between the intersection of Marshland Road/Briggs Road to extend 173 metres to the west in accordance with Attachment A.

Approves signage that prohibits right turning vehicle movements from Briggs Road into the access at all times.

Approves signage that prohibits U-turn movements from Briggs Road into the access.

Approves signage that prohibits the use of the access by heavy vehicles.

·     Approval of the following grants:

$300 from its 2017/18 Positive Youth Development Fund to Matthew Philip Munro towards the costs of participating in the Kiwi Caps India development tour from 16 to 28 April 2018

$500 from its 2017/18 Positive Youth Development Fund to Korfball New Zealand towards Rosie Nixon’s costs at competing at the Korfball U17 World Cup in the Netherlands from 23 to 24 June 2018

$150 from its 2017/18 Positive Youth Development Fund to St Thomas of Canterbury College towards Zavier Harema-Hughes’ costs to compete at the National 3x3 Schools Basketball Tournament in Tauranga from 20 to 24 March 2018

$300 from its 2017/18 Positive Youth Development Fund to Shirley Boys’ High School towards the costs of Mostafa Rajabi competing at the Futsal Schools National Tournament in Wellington from 20 March to 23 March 2018

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There were no Part A recommendations from the Board.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       MacFarlane Park Community Centre

The Lions Building was successfully relocated from The St Albans Community Centre site to MacFarlane Park on the morning of 12 February.


 

A blessing ceremony was held on 9 March 2018 at 11.30am on site with Cr Cotter as MC and the Deputy Mayor, Andrew Turner, on behalf of the Christchurch City Council, welcomed the partnership participants – Lions International and the local Lions Club, the Papanui‑Innes Community Board, Shirley Community Trust, Council staff and the local community.

 

The blessing led by Reimona Crofts of the Tuahiwi Marae opened the ceremony and entertainment was provided by the local Kidsfirst Kindergarten children. The Kidsfirst Kindergarten also donated a superb chocolate cake bearing the logos of the Christchurch City Council and the Lions International Foundation to celebrate the occasion.

5.2       St Albans Park Turf Renewal Project

After identifying a significant shortfall in the field/playground drainage, sports surface renewal and irrigation budget a successful tenderer has now been appointed with work currently underway. On the main field, turf has been stripped and set and trenching for drainage is underway. Encountering some issues associated with the very high water table. The project is expected to be completed in August 2018.

5.3       St Albans Park Pavilion

Demolition of the old pavilion was completed pre-Christmas, with the successful contractor in the early phases of site establishment. It is envisaged piling will commence this month.

 

The completion of this project is expected end of July 2018.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       Papanui Baptist Freedom Trust

The Papanui Baptist Freedom Trust have started a community survey to look at the Papanui area and are hoping that the findings from this survey will help to shape their future programmes and networking to the best effect in the local area.

6.2       Northwest Cluster

Local community board staff met with the Northwest Cluster (Belfast Community Network, Papanui Youth Development, Papanui Baptist Freedom Trust, Shirley Community Trust, Te Ora Hou and Bishopdale Community Trust) on 20 February to ensure the cluster is getting the support they need and to see where local board staff can work more effectively in partnership.

6.3       10 Shirley Road

Local community board staff are developing a localised research project on what the community currently have and what they would like. Staff will come back to the Board with the results in the coming months to ascertain the Board’s thoughts around the future of this site.

6.4       Combined Papanui-Innes and Coastal-Burwood Community Board Styx River Catchment Working Party

The working party was established as a result of the community conversation around Styx River catchment issues. Seven members of the community have been working with elected members and technical staff from the Council over the past six months to discuss issues and seek suitable outcomes.

Some dredging took place in the river opposite the Spencerville urban area late in 2017. A field trip was conducted to visit a number of spots along the river where specific issues have arisen. The final meeting of the working party will be held on Wednesday 4 April 2018. It is clear from discussions that river issues such as flooding, weed removal, river bank spread, silt build up and additional issues related to earthquake land movements need to continue to be informed by ongoing community involvement. An update from the meeting will be provided to the next Board meeting for consideration as a way forward.


 

6.5       Papanui-Innes Community Pride Garden Awards 2018

Held on Tuesday 6 March 2018 at the Christchurch North Methodist Church in Papanui. This year the Papanui-Innes Board area had 108 gardens selected. 65 recipients, guests and representatives from the Christchurch Beautifying Association attended the event hosted by the Papanui‑Innes Community Board.  Papanui High School students took photographs of recipients receiving their certificates and prize draws were also held. 

 

Attendees enjoyed the opportunity to meet and talk with fellow gardeners and to view photos of recipients' gardens.  The aim of the awards is to encourage civic garden pride and to acknowledge those who have contributed to maintaining the image of Christchurch as the Garden City by beautifying their streets and gardens.  The judging is undertaken by the Christchurch Beautifying Association.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.6       Papanui Bush Bridgestone Reserve

Staff are working on the organisation of a planting day and continue to gather groups of volunteers to be part of the planting project. There is a lot of interest around the project and it’s encouraging to see the number of local people who want to take part in the event.

6.7       Redwood Plunket Rooms

The project has started and City Care have kindly donated time and resources to the exterior of the building to support the wider project. An update from the Project Manager indicated that the work is expected to be completed by the end of June.


 

6.8       280 Westminster Street

Ward staff are meeting with staff from Parks, Leasing and Facilities around the possibility of this building being leased to a community organisation that is interested in utilising this whole space for the community.

6.9       Children’s Day

Image may contain: 1 person, crowd, tree, table and outdoorImage may contain: 1 person, tree, child, table, outdoor and natureChildren’s Day was held on Sunday 4 March and attracted approximately 12,000 people.  Evaluation results are in the process of being collected however the event has received very positive feedback from participants, stall holders and volunteers.

A great day was had by all and this would not have been possible without the huge support from volunteers, community organisations, and Council staff.  To get a small idea about the day check out the following video.  https://www.flickr.com/photos/161293475@N07/40620570702/in/album-72157692373455151/

6.10    Papanui Neighbours Day

Held on Sunday 11 March 2018. This was an opportunity for Board Members to promote community participation in the Long Term Plan process.

6.11    Mairehau Community Day

This event was held on 17 March 2018, at Mairehau Primary School on Mahars Road. It was well attended by the local community and the families thoroughly enjoyed the rides, the games and the sausage sizzle.

image3

 

 

 

 

image2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Board members and staff spent their time answering questions and handing out information on the Long Term Plan as well as signing up willing participants for the Papanui Bush Bridgestone Reserve replanting project.

 

6.12    Shirley Renewal Project – Background and Update

Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) owns a significant proportion of the housing in the Shirley area, specifically focused around MacFarlane Park. The housing and the Park were constructed in the 1950s/60s as one housing development project. Some of this original housing was cleared post-earthquake due to damage and some is reaching the point where renewal is required.

In 2016 the Council and HNZC agreed to work on a project to consider a comprehensive approach to the renewal of housing that would also consider the role of public open space (e.g. Macfarlane Park) and other activities in the area (e.g. the local shopping centre and community facilities). Early engagement with the community commenced in late 2016 and continued through to 2017.

In mid-2017 the previous Government announced that the HNZC controlled housing in Shirley would form part of the Social Housing Transfer Program (SHTP) for Christchurch. Given the uncertainty around HNZC’s ongoing responsibility for housing in the area, it was prudent to pause the work until after the SHTP process had concluded. During the SHTP bidding period (approximately June 2017 to November 2017) Council staff met with the bidders for the housing stock in Shirley to discuss options for continuing the work and to consider how these organisations may essentially step into the HNZC role in the project.

Following the change of government in late 2017 it became clear that the Social Housing Transfer Programme had been suspended, and it was formally cancelled early in 2018.

There is presently no master plan for Shirley or for MacFarlane Park. The role, composition and functions of the Park will be considered as part of the Shirley project and will be included in any subsequent master plan approach, should this be required.

Council staff will meet with Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZC) on 20 March 2018 and following this meeting will be able to provide a comprehensive update to the Board.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Christine Lane - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

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

Reference:

18/200240

Presenter(s):

David Cartwright, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Chairperson
Matt McLintock, Community Governance Manager, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board report for February and March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings on 26 February 2018 and 12 March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Dakota Park – Proposed Road Name: - the Board approved the private Road name of Rapid Way in Dakota Park, 202 Russley Road.

·   Holly Road, St Albans – Proposed P120 parking Restriction – The Board approved a P120 parking restriction outside 9 Holly Road noting that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board had approved a similar restriction outside number 8 Holly Road.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2017-18 Youth Development Fund – Applications:  The Board approved funding applications totalling $1,550 to nine recipients toward a range of ventures.

·   The Board received a petition seeking an extension of the dog park at the Groynes using land left over from the construction of the Western Belfast Bypass.  The petition was referred to staff for consideration and a response back regarding the viability including costs, of using the leftover land from the construction of the Western Bypass to enlarge the current dog park with particular emphasis on the small dog area.

             The Board also heard from five public Forum presenters and received two items of correspondence which were referred to staff for a response back to the Board.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A recommendations from the Board.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Jeffreys Reserve Suction Tank Replacement Project           

5.1.1   Council staff have worked through the community feedback on the Jeffreys Reserve Suction Tank and after further comprehensive investigation, there will be another opportunity for residents to comment on the location and design of an alternative proposal within the Jeffreys Reserve.

 


 

5.2       Jellie Park Upgrade and Earthquake Repair

5.2.1   Work is progressing on the Jellie Park Upgrade and Earthquake Repair programme which is being carried out in stages to keep the disruption to users to a minimum.

5.2.2   The first phase of repairs is expected to be completed by December 2019 and work is currently underway on the Sauna, Spa and Steam Room, due for completion in March 2018, and the outdoor Hydroslide, due for completion in May 2018.

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       Council’s Long Term Plan 2018-18

6.1.1   The Board held three ward-based community ‘drop-in’ sessions to engage with the local community on 10 March, 16 March and 29 March.   Information collected from the drop-in sessions will assist the Board in the preparation of its submission to the Council on its Long Term Plan 2015-28.

6.2       Community Issues

6.2.1   A wide range of issues, including a number of maintenance issues, continued to be raised             by residents with staff and elected members  These issues are actioned an individual basis.

6.3       Partnerships with the community and organisations

Cotswold School Bike Track Opening

A great afternoon for the opening of the Bikes in Schools bike track at Cotswold School on Wednesday 21 March.  A partnership programme between the Bikes in Schools Trust and Cotswold School and part funded by the Fendalton-Waimairi-Community Board and other external funders.  The Bikes in Schools programme is only the second to be launched in Christchurch, following on from the success of the Rawhiti School programme.

 

The programme addresses the negative statistics of bike use by children in New Zealand by providing the access to well-maintained bikes and a safe environment for children to regularly practice their cycling skills and build their fitness and confidence at the same time.

 

Cotswold School principal, Paula Fleming-Connell, indicated that the track is nearly at capacity for use during the day by pupils and they have recently held a successful Duathlon and Bike-a-thon there as well.  The school have promoted the track the local community which has seen the track being used regularly on the weekends as well.

 

The entire school of 500 plus pupils and teachers attended the opening afternoon with the school's kapa haka group, jump jam group and choir all performing for the students, parents and guests.  A great initiative in a wonderful school that will have positive results in the community.

 

 

 

                                       

3.              Artists-in-Residence Mona Vale Gatehouse

One of the current Artists-in-residence at the Mona vale Gatehouse, internationally recognised stop motion animator Rachel Larsen, from the United States, was a presenter at the Design Assembly Conversation Autumn 2018 event held on 27 March 2018.

6.4       Culture Galore

Terrific weather saw a huge attendance at the annual ‘Culture Galore’ event at Ray Blank Park on Saturday 10 March 2018.  Over 6,500 people enjoyed the tasty ethnic cuisine from over 40 food stalls, the colourful and vibrant stage performances and the free fun activities for the kids.

 

Now in its 16th year, Culture Galore continues to be very popular with generations of families showing such pride in their cultures dressing up and performing together.  The event also brought together the diverse communities that call Christchurch home, to celebrate and share their cultures with each other.

 

Supported by the Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood and Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Boards and Plains FM.

6.5       Community Pride Garden Awards

The Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood 2018 Community Pride Garden Awards ceremony was held on Wednesday 14 March at the Fendalton Bowling Club and over 70 Garden Awards recipients were available to attend the presentation ceremony.

In addition to the certificate presentation, four trophies were awarded the overall winners.

The guest speaker was Christchurch City Council’s own Antony Shadbolt and he spoke about Urban and City Regeneration and how gardeners can help to lessen global warming by planting particular types of plants. Ron Andrew, president of Christchurch Beautifying Association, also addressed those present.

Following the presentation of certificates and trophies a lucky prize draw took place and variety of prizes including plants and garden ornaments were well received by those holding winning tickets.  This was followed by refreshments where those present had the opportunity to meet their fellow award-winning gardeners.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities in the 2017-19 Community Board Plan. A regular summary of these measures is provided to the Board on a regular basis.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

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

Margaret Henderson - Community Board Advisor

Maryanne Lomax - Community Development Advisor

Trevor Cattermole - Community Development Advisor

Lisa Gregory - Community Recreation Advisor

Kay Rabe - Governance Support Officer

Bronwyn Frost - Community Support Officer

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018                                            

 

 

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

Reference:

18/205691

Presenter(s):

Mike Mora, Chairperson
Gary Watson, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board report for February and March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held ordinary meetings on 27 February 2018, 13 March 2018 and 27 March 2018.  Some key decisions made under delegation were:

·   Allocations of Youth Development Funding to eight individual recipients.

·   Allocations of Discretionary Response Funding to three local organisations.

·   Approval of the Landscape Plan for the Wilmers Basin and Owaka-Awatea Corridor projects.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The Board’s recommendation from its meeting on 27 February 2018 regarding the Riccarton Road Upgrade – Harakeke Street to Matipo Street project, was considered by the Council on 22 March 2018.

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1      An Off the Ground Fund application was received from the Hope Presbyterian Community Church towards a Love Your Local Working Bee at Gilberthorpe School.  The total allocated was $149.54.

5.1.2      The Halswell-Hornby-Community Board provided funding to the Deans Avenue Precinct Society towards the upgrade of the Brockworth Walkway Mural.  Artists Damian Holt, Courtney Paige and Zac Harding have completed this mural work.

     

         

 

5.1.3      Organisers of the Amazing Place Riccarton event advised that the event would not take place due to a low number of contributing organisations committing to being involved in the event.  As the Amazing Place event was combining with the Connect event, community members were encouraged to attend Connect which was still running.  Funding therefore allocated by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board towards the Amazing Pace event was not uplifted.   

5.2    Other partnerships with the community and organisations

5.2.3      Staff are working with the Templeton Residents’ Association to provide support and advice where appropriate, with any submission process that may arise from the lodgement of the Fulton Hogan quarrying proposals.

5.2.4      The Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association has sought assistance to obtain independent feasibility advice on the current status and future of the Yaldhurst Memorial Hall.  Staff have been able to assist progressing this through the provision of operational capacity building funding.

5.3    Community Facilities

5.3.3      Riccarton Community Centre

                The Concept Design for the new Riccarton Community Centre was finalised earlier this year following presentations to, and feedback from, internal stakeholders and the Community Board.  The Design Team has now progressed to the next phase which is Developed Design and will be working on this for the next couple of months.

5.4    Infrastructure projects

5.4.3      The installation of the additional play equipment at the Picton Reserve, as funded by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, has been completed.  A swing set and slide are now in place alongside the existing play equipment in the park.

                     

 

6     Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       On 11 March 2018, up to 50 people gathered in the Hornby Rugby Clubrooms to discuss the formation of a new Hornby Residents’ Association.  Issues included Denton Park reclassification, a number of roading and traffic issues, flooding issues at the corner of Amyes Road/Shands Road, the state of the skatepark at Wycola Park and the condition of the Hornby Library grounds. A steering group is to meet in April 2018 to begin planning for this new group. The matter of the Hornby Library grounds maintenance is already being addressed by staff.

6.2       Upper Riccarton War Memorial Library.  The library will be operating a mini library from the former Plunket room at the rear of the library. Some of the memorial boards have already been removed and are being stored at the Rannerdale Veterans Home. Others still in the library, as well as some of the more valuable books, will also go to Rannerdale for safe keeping and/or display.  The annual dawn memorial service for Anzac Day 2018 which the library hosts, will still be held, albeit at the Rannerdale Veterans Home. Rannerdale will also hold its usual service later in the morning.  It is envisaged that the memorial boards will be on display for both services.

As far as the building itself is concerned, it remains up to the library’s Trust to decide on the longer term future of the building.  The Trust is beginning to work through its options in this regard.

6.3       Events Report Back

6.3.1   Connect 2018

Another successful Connect event was held at Harrington Park on Saturday 3 March 2018 from 3pm to 6pm attended by over 200 people from the local Riccarton area.

Supported by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board, the University of Canterbury and the Oak Development Trust, Connect aims to welcome new students to the area and provided a free fun event where students and local community in the Riccarton area were able to mix and get to know one another.

Attendees enjoyed the Student versus Whānau competition, Zumba, free food, face-painting and lots of fun activities and entertainment.


 

 

 

 

 

 


 


6.3.2   Culture Galore

Perfect weather saw a huge attendance at the annual Culture Galore event at Ray Blank Park on Saturday 10 March 2018.  Over 6,500 people enjoyed the tasty ethnic cuisine from over 40 food stalls, the colourful and vibrant stage performances and the free fun activities for the kids.

Now in its sixteenth year, Culture Galore continues to be very popular with generations of families showing such pride in their cultures dressing up and performing together.  The event also brought together the diverse communities that call Christchurch home, to celebrate and share their cultures with each other.

The event is supported jointly by the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community and Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Boards, and by Plains FM.


 

 

6.3.3   Halswell Quarry - Green Flag Award

Halswell Quarry is one of 18 parks in New Zealand and the only park in Canterbury to have been awarded the coveted international Green Flag Award.

The Green Flag Award scheme is being piloted in New Zealand by the New Zealand Recreation Association and is an international mark of quality recognising the very best green spaces. The award is judged on eight criteria including, horticultural standards, cleanliness, sustainability, community involvement and providing a warm welcome.

6.3.4   Community Pride Garden Awards

The Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Pride Garden Awards Board-hosted function was successfully held on Monday 12 March 2018 at the Hornby Working Mens' Club. It was a very well attended occasion with 103 certificates being issued by Board members. Ron Andrew, President, Christchurch Beautifying Association, gave an address. A lucky prize draw occurred and was well received by attendees. A variety of 18 sponsored prizes were handed out and included plants, gardening items and shopping vouchers. 120 certificates were subsequently forwarded to those recipients unable to attend. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the 2017 – 2019 Community Board Plan.  This information was presented in the monthly Area Report to the Board on 27 March 2018. 

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest 

8.1       The Community Board continues to be contacted about quarrying issues in the Yaldhurst/Templeton areas and its interest on this important local matter is ongoing.

8.2       The Board continues to receive concerns from the community around levels of maintenance across the three wards particularly in relation to parks, road areas and general tidiness. Board members share these concerns as an ongoing issue to be addressed.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Noela Letufuga - Community Support Officer

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Ana Macadie - Metropolitan Community Advisor Safety

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

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

8.        Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

18/259568

Presenter(s):

Kim Money, Chairperson – Coastal-Burwood Community Board

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Coastal-Burwood Community Board report for March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held meetings on Monday 19 February 2018 and Monday 5 and 19 March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

The Board approved a number of decisions in relation to no stopping restrictions and road markings on Breezes Road and Hampshire Street (Haeata Community Campus).

The Board approved a number of decisions in relation to the QEII Recreation and Sports Centre, and Ministry of Education associated Transport Network Improvements.  

Funding for Community Projects in the Coastal-Burwood Area:

The Board approved a grant of $4,000 to the Pier Foreshore and Promotion Society Ltd towards The Ray White New Brighton Duke Festival of Surfing 2018 Family Movie Night on 16 March 2018.

The Board approved a grant to a young person to compete in the Oceania Billiard and snooker Championships in Sydney, Australia.

The Board approved a grant to a young person to compete the Under 18 New Zealand Women’s Ice Hockey in the Asia Challenge Cup in Kuala Lumpur.

The Board approved a grant to a young person to compete in the Under 17 Korfball World Cup from 23 to 24 June 2018.

The Board approved a grant towards the cost of three players competing in the World Schools Rugby Festival in South Africa from 2 to 7 April 2018.

The Board approved a grant of $750 to Dementia Canterbury towards the Walk for Dementia events costs.

The Board approved a grant of $2,353 to Spencer Park Surf Life Saving Club towards Water Supply Consent Fee.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

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

Queenspark Drive - Variable Speed Limit (school zone).
The Board’s recommendation from its meeting on 5 March 2018 of Queenspark Drive – Proposed Queenspark School Variable speed Limit (School Zone) will be considered by the Council at its meeting on 5 April 2018.

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

QEII Park Master Plan   

What’s your view on QEII Park?
A Community Day is being held on Sunday 25 March from 12-3pm at QEII Park.

Residents are invited to come along and talk with staff about how QEII Park is evolving and help shape its future.  The event includes guided walks around the park, information about the Park, updates on the new pool, new school campus and the Christchurch School of Gymnastics rebuild.  Activities for children and a free sausage sizzle. 

The purpose of the event is to provide residents with information on historical decisions, the park’s current state and neighbouring school campus, and get input ahead of the next steps for the QEII Master Plan.  

QEII Park Master Plan – Site Day


 

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

 

6.1       Long Term Plan (LTP) Engagement in the Ward Areas

A drop in session was held on Thursday 15 March 2018, from 6pm – 8pm in the Community Boardroom). A number of council staff were in attendance along with members of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

Coastal-Burwood Community Board members will also be out and about in the community, discussing the LTP including at the Seaside Market in New Brighton, Pak n’ Save Wainoni, Prestons New World and at other local events.

6.2       Events Report Back

6.2.1      Residents Association Forum

Residents Association representatives, community governance staff and community board members came together on 6 March 2018 for the residents association forum at the Aranui-Wainoni Community Centre.  The forum provided a great opportunity for staff to share information with residents about the QEII Master Plan pre-engagement and What's your view on QEII Park? event taking place on Sunday 25 March. The community board gave an update on the Long Term Plan process and time line for submissions and they asked residents for suggestions around ways to engage the community in the process. Residents Associations had time to talk informally to staff and community board members, which is something they value at the forums. There was also time for the associations to talk about some of the projects they are doing.

 

6.2.2      Spacifically Pacific Polyfest 2018

Polyfest Canterbury 2018https://cdn.eventfinda.co.nz/uploads/events/transformed/1078604-485544-14.jpg?_ga=2.59993700.874908466.1522101369-704927522.1522101369Sacred Heart College at Polyfest.This event celebrating Pacific youth through cultural performance was held on Saturday 17 March in the former residential Red Zone in Dallington (on the corner of New Brighton Road & Locksley Ave) and attracted approximately 8,000 people - mainly families from the Pasifika and wider community - and around 800 performers from 19 secondary schools from Nelson College to Ashburton College.

 

6.2.3      Children’s Day

Image may contain: 1 person, crowd, tree, table and outdoorChildren’s day was held on Sunday 4 March and attracted approximately 12,000 people.  The event has received very positive feedback from participants, stall holders and volunteers.

Image may contain: 1 person, tree, child, table, outdoor and nature

Children’s Day 2018

6.2.4      The New Brighton Duke Festival of Surfing

 

In 2015 Ross Tyson made a replica of the Duke’s surfboard as part of the centenary celebrations of Duke Kahanamoku’s surfing and swimming displays in the area. These celebrations spawned the inaugural “Duke Festival” the following year and is now already New Zealand’s largest surfing event.

 

​The Duke Festival uses the sport and culture of surfing to raise pride in, and the perception of, the wider New Brighton area. It’s an event run entirely by the local community.   In 2018 events included: an art gallery, school surf lessons, an outdoor movie night, kids art competition, a dinner and dance night, a surf board display and a huge number of surfing events.

 

Duke Outdoor Movie Night

 

      

 

Duke Festival of Surfing in New Brighton

 

6.2.5      Coastal-Burwood Community Pride Garden Awards

The Coastal-Burwood Community Pride Garden Awards were held on Saturday 17 March at the Parklands Baptist Church. There were over 60 certificates presented at the ceremony and this was followed by a morning tea that was enjoyed by all.

Community Pride Garden Awards


 

6.2.6      South Brighton and Southshore Event

The event to celebrate the recently completed works in the South Brighton and Southshore areas was held on Sunday 25 February 2018.  The event was held in the South Brighton Domain and attended by approximately 30 people.  The free sausage sizzle and entertainment from local pirate entertainers was a huge hit.

Community Celebration in South Brighton

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the 2017 – 2019 Community Board Plan. 

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest 

8.1       The Board requested that consideration be given to having one contractor responsible for emptying rubbish bins in the New Brighton Beachside area.  A site meeting is being organised with relevant staff to look into whether this is possible.

8.2       The Board provided feedback to Council staff which opposed Environment Canterbury’s proposal for the removal of two bus routes in the area – The Palms to Spencerville and New Brighton to Burwood Hospital routes. The Board was pleased to see the Council’s opposition to bus route removals.

8.3       The Board noted that there have been concerns raised in the community around the difficulty in obtaining Resource Consents in the High Flood Management Zone (HFMZ) in Southshore.  The Board is holding a workshop with a number of residents and staff to further understand and assist with ways to address these issues.  

8.4       The Board received an independent arborist assessment of the hazardous trees on the estuary edge of the South Brighton Domain. Staff have agreed with the recommendations in the report to mitigate risk.  The Board looks forward to the second assessment that will look at other trees within the reserve.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 5 March 2018

 

9.        Queenspark Drive - Proposed Queenspark School Variable Speed Limit (School Zone)

Reference:

18/223565

Presenter(s):

Wayne Gallot,  Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

1.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2018/00001 (original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board resolved to:

3.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendations 1 and 2 of this report, the new variable speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour on Queenspark Drive (school zone), commencing at a point 55 metres south west of its intersection with Broadhaven Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 342 metres, shall come into force on completion of infrastructure installation and public notification.

 

2.  Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on
Queenspark Drive (school zone) as it meets the requirements of Section 2.5 and Section 2.6 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit
(40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on Queenspark Drive, commencing at a point 55 metres south west of its intersection with Broadhaven Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 342 metres.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Queenspark Drive - Proposed Queenspark School Variable Speed Limit (School Zone)

37

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed 40kph Variable Speed Limit School Zone - Queenspark School (Attachment to report 18/66373)

43

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

Queenspark Drive - Proposed Queenspark School Variable Speed Limit (School Zone)

Reference:

18/66373

Contact:

Wayne Gallot

wayne.gallot@ccc.govt.nz

941 5924

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to endorse the installation of a new variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour school speed zone) on Queenspark Drive at Queenspark School, and to recommend to the Council that it approves the new variable speed limits and include it in the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated, in response to the Queenspark Schools request and this site is becoming top priority on the Council’s approved school zone implementation priority list.

2.   Significance                                                          

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents by the preferred option.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommends that the Council:

1.         Approve the installation of a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit on Queenspark Drive (school zone) as it meets the requirements of Section 2.5 and Section 2.6 of the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, and the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve that, subject to the Council approving recommendation 1 above, pursuant to Clause 5(1) of the Christchurch City Speed Limits Bylaw 2010, a variable speed limit (40 kilometres per hour School Speed zone) apply on Queenspark Drive, commencing at a point 55 metres south west of its intersection with Broadhaven Avenue and extending in a south westerly direction for a distance of 342 metres.

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

 

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

·     Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect Vulnerable Road Users – minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Install a school speed zone on Queenspark Drive for Queenspark School (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It reduces the operational speed on Queenspark Drive, therefore improves the safety in the area during the peak school travel times.

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council has a commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. The Council has a programme of installing 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limits (known as ‘School Speed Zones’) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control device(s) are practical or feasible.

5.2       The Queenspark School community have raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications for children on their way to and from school.


 

6.   Option 1 - Install a school speed zone on Queenspark Drive for Queenspark School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the school speed zone on Queenspark Drive for Queenspark School as shown in Attachment A.

6.2       Electronic signs are proposed to be placed at the start of the school speed zone outside the properties at No.203 and No.244 Queenspark Drive. Static (non-electronic) signs are proposed to be placed at the end of the school speed zone outside No.243 Queenspark Drive and opposite No.203 Queenspark Drive.

6.3       The existing PW-31 ‘ Children’ and supplementary PW-32 ‘School’ warning signs currently located outside No.244 Queenspark Drive are proposed to be relocated approximately 65 metres southwest to a new location outside No.236 Queenspark Drive.

Significance

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

6.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Queenspark School community have previously raised concerns about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications for children on their way to and from school.

6.8       Following staff surveys and investigations to reconfirm that the proposed school speed zone met the required NZTA warrants and remained at the top of the Council’s prioritisation program, staff met with the Queenspark School vice principal and subsequently received a formal written request from the school principal in November 2017 for installation of a school speed zone.

6.9       Initial engagement was carried out with NZTA and Police in December 2017. Neither organisation expressed any opposition to the proposal.

6.10    An information letter and plan of the proposal was hand delivered to each of the properties on Queenspark Drive within (and directly adjacent to) the proposed school speed zone on Tuesday 30 January 2018, with responses requested by 13 February 2018. Attempts were made to speak directly with residents of the properties directly adjacent to any of the proposed sign locations. Only one resident (at No.236 Queenspark Drive) was home at the time, and that person verbally indicated their support for the proposal. Copies of the letter and plan were also posted to non-resident owners of the properties directly adjacent to any of the proposed signage. Only one response was received from the letter-box drop advising of a small error on the consultation plan that incorrectly identified the location of the existing warning signs on the east side of Queenspark Drive. That response did not indicate support or opposition to the proposal.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.12    Cost of Implementation – approximately $30,000

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered under the area maintenance contract and effects will be minimal to the overall asset

6.14    Funding source – Road Safety at Schools budget

Legal Implications

6.15    Implementation of variable speed limit school zones, including the installation of any associated signs and/or markings, must comply with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) and NZTA Traffic Note 37 Revision 2 (May 2011).

6.16    The Interpretation Act 1999 provides for the New Zealand Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) and NZTA Traffic Note 37 to have continued effect, despite those documents being set under (and referring to) the now repealed Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003.

6.17    The installation of any signs and/or markings must also comply with Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Risks and Mitigations

6.18    None identified.

Implementation

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

6.20    Implementation timeframe – Installed by the end of May 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·   It reduces the operational speed on Queenspark Drive, therefore improves the safety in the area during the peak school travel times.

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

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on the traffic route.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       This option was not consulted on.

7.6       This option would not address concerns previously raised by the Queenspark School community about the traffic environment around the school and the consequential road safety implications for children on their way to and from school.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7.1   Inconsistency – it does not address the concerns raised by the school and community.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – it does not offer any protection to vulnerable road users on Queenspark Drive at Queenspark School.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – cost of staff time investigating the proposal.

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.10    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.11    Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    The risk of an accident and the severity of it remains high with this option.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - not applicable

7.14    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

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

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed 40kph Variable Speed Limit School Zone - Queenspark School (Attachment to report 18/66373)

 

 

 

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

Wayne Gallot - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

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

Reference:

18/242589

Presenter(s):

Sally Buck, Chairperson Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board
Shupayi Mpunga, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held meetings on 26 February and 14 March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   The Board approved:

·   Parking Restrictions in:

·     Cass Street, Sydenham

·     Springfield Road, St Albans

·     Selwyn Street, Sydenham

·     Marama Crescent/St Andrews Hill, Mt Pleasant

·     Bay View Road, Moncks Bay

·     Orbell Street, Sydenham

·     Austin Street, Waltham

·     Saxon Street, Phillipstown

·     Avonside Drive, extension to the school bus parking area.

·   An electric vehicle charging station time restriction (120mins) in Hagley Park.

·     The commencement of a community consultation for the site selection for the Linwood/Woolston Pool.

·     Parts of the Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project (FR4 Ferry Road Masterplan).

·     The nomination of Sally Buck to assist the Council’s Heritage Team with the Future of Heritage Community Workshops.

·     To support extending the temporary alcohol ban in the Linwood Village area past June 2018 until the Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw has been reviewed.

·     Confirmed that the water fountains and the Sumner Changing Sheds projects approved through the Council’s 2017/18 Annual Plan be implemented.

·     Funding from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to:

·     Sydenham Quarter for a project to Promote Sydenham.

·     The Woolston Park Upgrade for three pieces of accessible playground equipment.

Set of Talking Tubes – these can be installed in two locations in the playground with an underground tube between each talking tube. Users can interact by talking and listening through the tubes.

 

Cherub Musical Instrument – There are eleven tubular bells and the user has paddles to hit the bells to make music.

Interactive Timber Sound Bridge with rope handrail – An ideal addition to a pathway. The bridge is 2 metres long with 6 bells that users can move to make a tune

 

·   Funding contributions from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2017/18 Youth Development Fund for young people to attend the indoor Netball Nationals in Auckland from 8 – 12 March 2018.

·   re-allocation of funding from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2017/18 Strengthening Communities Fund for Mt Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents’ Association Incorporated (Community Centre) for Estuary Fest to the Community Centre for funding towards the Administrator’s salary.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

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

4.1       Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project (FR4 Ferry Road Masterplan)

4.2       Penfolds Cob Cottage – Future Repair or Restoration.

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Council 2018-2028 Draft Long Term Plan

5.1       The Board held two Draft Long Term Plan Workshops within the Community Board area on 20 and 21 March 2018.  Information from the workshops will be used to inform the Community Board’s submission to the Council’s 2018-2028 Draft Long Term Plan.

Sumner Masterplan

5.2       The Board have been advised that construction for the P1.1 Sumner Village – Wakefield Avenue and Marriner Street is scheduled to begin in May 2018 and will take approximately six months to complete.  Start Work Notices will be distributed prior to construction starting.

Ōpāwa Volunteer Library Rebuild

5.3       The Board had been advised previously it is uneconomic to rebuild the Ōpāwa Volunteer Library which was damaged in the earthquakes. Since this time the Library has been co-located with the Ōpāwa Children’s Library but there is not enough room for both to display their entire collections. The damaged building will need to be demolished and replaced with a new building that will house both the Volunteer Library and Children’s Library.

5.3.1   A Working Group has been established to provide feedback and advice on the architectural scope of work to be included in the Request for Proposal going out to contractors seeking a Design & Build method of project delivery to construct a new building. The Working Group continues to meet bi-weekly.

Woolston Community Library

5.4       The Woolston Community Library Rebuild is currently on track.  The foundation slab is down and all the pre-cast concrete panels are now up.  The timber framing has been pre-cut.  Steel reinforcing was installed the week of 26 February 2018.

·     The consultants for the project are currently working on the final design for the laneway and car park upgrade.

·     Some of the items that were salvaged from the old building are now on site and designs are being worked on to see how they can be re-used in the new building.  The former foundation stone will be placed in part of the new garden.

·     Based on the responses from the Working Group and the Library Committee, and given that the original building was called Woolston Community Library, the consensus is to go with this name for the new facility.

·     It was also raised at the Social Community Development and Housing Committee meeting on Tuesday (28 February 2018) where the Committee also shared the preference to name the new facility: Woolston Community Library.  The Working Group didn't see the need to go out for public consultation

 

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

Linwood Village Proposal to Extend Timeframe of Temporary Alcohol Ban

6.1       The Council put in place a temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village area in December 2017.  Staff are currently reviewing the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban and are looking into options as to whether the ban should be continued past its current timeframe. 

6.1.1   The Council has gathered information from residents, through a survey (Attachment A), asking 1) if the  alcohol ban has been effective in reducing alcohol-related antisocial behaviour, 2) if residents do or do not support the continuation of the temporary alcohol ban in the area beyond June 2018 and 3) if residents would support a permanent alcohol ban in the area.   The survey closed on 15 March 2018.

Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre Usage

6.2       The Board requested information on the usuage of the Matauku Takotako: Sumner Centre and to look at having the centre weekend hours increased. 

Neighbourhood Libraries with a smaller footprint, collection size, staffing levels and operating hours are located in communities that draw on a smaller population base.

Use of the Library at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre  Pre-schoolers and their care-givers, school groups and Early Childhood Education groups predominantly visit the library in the mornings, along with retirees both from the Sumner/Redcliffs’ areas, as well as those visiting from other parts of Christchurch. Students flock to the library in the afternoons and throughout the day adult students undertaking formal study use the library as a quiet space. The library and the facility itself is used by people from all walks of life and from a diversity of age groups.

Next steps - Staff have received mixed community preferences regarding the library opening hours.  Some requests have been for extending the Saturday library hours and/or opening on a Sunday, whilst other community members are content with the current library hours of operation.

Staff recommend to the Board to retain the status quo for library opening hours for 2018/19 while staff continue to monitor usage and assess community demand for full year to 18 month’s operation.

It’s Great to Live Here Expo

6.3       The ‘It’s Great to Live Here’ Expo will be held this year, during the July school holidays.  The Expo is led by Greater Linwood community groups and organisations, in partnership with the Eastgate Shopping Centre.  The Linwood Library is also a key partner in the Expo. The Expo will again be held at Eastgate.  The Expo is an opportunity for Greater Linwood community organisations to acknowledge all that is great about working in the area, and to showcase their work and services.

Linwood Youth Development (LYD) Project

6.4       The position of Linwood Youth Development Worker was established in 2002, and has received ongoing funding and support from the Community Board. Several workers have held the position of LYD worker over a number of years, and in 2016 an evaluation of the role was undertaken.

6.4.1   The evaluation identified the potential to provide coordination, support, and leadership to youth development organisations working in the Greater Linwood area.

6.4.2   In order to progress the project, the Canterbury Youth Workers Collective has agreed to facilitate a networking forum for Greater Linwood youth agencies.

6.4.3   The Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board will be provided with regular updates about the Linwood Youth Development Project. 

Roimata Food Commons (Radley Park)

6.5       The Roimata Food Commons project is a community-led initiative to develop parts of Radley Park as a community orchard and vegetable garden. Long term goals of the project include providing fruit and vegetables to the local community, youth educational programmes and community outdoor film events.

6.5.1   Roimata hosted an outdoor movie night on 17 March to promote environmental awareness and bring the community together. This event was supported by the Board’s Light Bulb Moments Fund, Christchurch Methodist Mission, ECan, and local businesses.

6.5.2   The Roimata Commons Trust is working with the Council and OPUS to develop a proposed landscape plan. The Council is also working with the Trust to develop a proposed licence agreement for part of the Park. Both the Landscape Plan and licence will be released for public consultation and then considered by the Board.

LYFE (Linwood Youth Festival Experience) 2018

6.6       LYFE was held on Saturday 17 March with the youth crew responsible for planning and delivering LYFE alongside the LYFE Coordinator putting the final touches to the event that took place in Linwood Park at the later time of 4pm to 8pm.  Youth supported engagement for the Linwood/Woolston Pool was an important aspect of the event this year.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       There is no update at time of writing this report.

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest 

8.1       District Licensing Committee Hearing – The Board made a presentation to the District Licensing Committee Sale of Alcohol Application for a proposed off licence premises at 373 Ferry Road on Tuesday 20 March 2018.

8.2       Sumner Temporary Skate Ramp – a temporary skate ramp has been installed on the corner of Nayland Street and Wakefield Avenue in Sumner. 

8.3       The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Pride Garden Awards were held Friday 16 March 2018.  The awards acknowledge the gardeners who go to great effort to enhance the beauty of our city environment, by the pride with which they maintain the attractiveness of their gardens.  This year there were 140 people who received an award.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Letter and Survey to Linwood Village Residents on Temporary Alcohol Restrictions - March 2018

52

 

 

Signatories

Author

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

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 14 March 2018

 

11.    Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration

Reference:

18/292155

Presenter(s):

Russel Wedge, Team Leader Parks Policy & Advisor, 941 8270

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve Option 1 to stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric of Penfold’s Cob Cottage and glaze lost areas.

a.         Work with Ferrymead Park Limited to develop a cob trail and cob events to link the Cottage with Ferrymead Park.

b.         Work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the community to develop innovative interpretation to promote the Cottage.

 

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

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approve Option 1 to stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric of Penfold’s Cob Cottage and glaze lost areas.

a.         Work with Ferrymead Park Limited to develop a cob trail and cob events to link the Cottage with Ferrymead Park.

b.         Work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the community to develop innovative interpretation to promote the Cottage.

2.         Approve the Penfolds Cob Cottage planned works to commence as soon as possible, owing to the ongoing deterioration to the heritage fibre of the cottage.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration

56

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Penfold's Cob Cottage: submissions and responses

65

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

Penfold's Cob Cottage - Future Repair or Restoration

Reference:

18/166207

Presenter(s):

Russel Wedge

 

 

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 Stabilisation and Repair option for Penfold’s Cob Cottage.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolution (LCHB/2017/00191):

Request 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.

1.3       Further to the above resolution a memo was sent to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 14 February 2017, Penfold’s Cob Cottage – Council Resolution advising a report would be presented to the Board for its March 2018 meeting.

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 the limited group of residents affected in relation to the Christchurch district, and the relatively low risk of implementing the recommendations.

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 Option 1 to stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric of Penfold’s Cob Cottage and glaze lost areas.

a.         Work with Ferrymead Park Limited to develop a cob trail and cob events to link the Cottage with Ferrymead Park.

b.         Work with Ngāi Tahu and the community to develop innovative interpretation to promote the Cottage.

 

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: 6.2.10 Garden and Heritage Parks are maintained to specifications so parks are clean, tidy, safe and functional. Trees, Clocks, fountains and statues are maintained to specifications.

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection Level of Service:

·     Implement a programme to ensure a consistent and broadened level of historic heritage protection within Banks Peninsula and Christchurch City.

·     Provide advice and advocacy on heritage conservation principles and priorities for the district’s historic heritage, both internally and externally.

·     Best practice conservation methodology and heritage asset management practices are implemented for all Council owned heritage assets.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Repair and Stabilise the remaining heritage fabric, with lost areas glazed (Preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Deconstruct and Reconstruct

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The largely intact full cob wall construction to the road frontage and to the side facing Ferrymead Bridge (I.e. the two most publically visible elevations) will be repaired and restored to their pre-earthquake form, allowing two of the four elevations to be seen in their intact and original form.

·     The remaining two elevations which have collapsed will be stabilised and glazed so that the interior of the Cottage would be seen through a protective glass wall to the side and rear.

·     An extremely rare and locally unique example of very early sod construction (c. 1870) and later earth construction over time (1940-1990) will be protected for future generations with no further loss of original fabric. 

·     The key aspects of the heritage significance of the Cottage - historical and social, technological and craftsmanship and landmark values (i.e. the reason for its listing) will be retained and enhanced.

·     The roof and roof structure are retained.

·     This proposal will showcase best practice heritage conservation by the Council, and offer significant education and advocacy opportunities.

·     This proposal supports heritage conservation best practice and the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·     This proposal will engage visitors and involve the community in providing both an authentic visitor experience and interaction with heritage in an innovative new way which is unique in Canterbury.

·     The glazed areas would provide accessible viewing for those who could not previously access the Cottage. 

·     It provides a record of an important historical event, namely the Canterbury earthquakes.

·     This option is the one which the community has demonstrated its support for through the consultation process. See below 6.10 – 6.18.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The landmark and contextual values of the Cottage, which were diminished when it was damaged in the earthquakes, are not fully reinstated.

·     The loss of integrity of the original wall construction as a result of the earthquakes has reduced the ability to convey the architectural value of the Cottage. This option does not reinstate the original wall construction on two elevations.

·     The interior of the Cottage is not physically accessible to the public, although it is visible.

·     The lost chimney (an important part of the building demonstrating a former way of life) is not reinstated.

 

 

5.   Background

Penfold’s Cob Cottage

5.1       James Penfold’s Cottage c. 1870 is located on Scott Park, near Ferrymead Bridge

5.2       For 600 years Ngāi Tahu (and their predecessors Ngāti Māmoe and Waitaha) used the present Main Road as a travelling route, a place of settlement and as a significant mahinga kai (resource and food gathering) area.

5.3       It became a key thoroughfare for European settlers in the mid-19th century. James Penfold leased the land in 1870 and built the Cottage using sod blocks. The former captain of the vessel Excelsior, and then labourer on the new railway, lived there with his family until about 1878. They then they moved to Southbridge.

5.4       The Cottage was largely rebuilt by Ernest Parish between 1940 - 44, with help from the Mt Pleasant Burgess’s Association and the Mount Pleasant Boating Club. Unable to find suitable sods, Ernest Parish reconstructed the building in cob, but retained an area of now unique sod construction.

5.5       Two years later Scott Brothers Ltd gave the Cottage and its surroundings to Christchurch City Council for ‘the health, amusement and instruction of the public’.

5.6       The Cottage was again repaired by Ernest Parish in 1948 after it was badly damaged by fire. Further repairs to the Cottage were carried out in the 1980s (cob) and 1990s (clay blocks). This contributes to the social, architectural and technological values of the Cottage as a record of changing building methodologies over time.

5.7       Listed in the Christchurch District Plan as a significant heritage item, the Cottage has architectural and aesthetic significance as 'a rare Christchurch example of an earth building, a method of construction once used quite extensively in Canterbury and Marlborough'. Some original sod courses remain at the lower levels.

5.8       There is considerable heritage value in the stories associated with the Cottage, i.e. its intangible heritage. These stories include its repair and restoration over its history utilising different earth technologies; its association with key local figures, and its association with the 1950 Canterbury Centennial.

5.9       The Cottage was badly damaged in the earthquakes. The chimney collapsed, and two of the four walls partially collapsed and have been stabilised to prevent further damage and loss. The principal, street elevation and left side (facing Ferrymead Bridge) have suffered some damage and require repair and upgrades.


 

6.   Option 1 – Stabilise and repair the remaining heritage fabric, with lost areas glazed (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The two largely intact elevations to the street and to the left of the Cottage facing Ferrymead Bridge are repaired and upgraded, including replastering and repainting to retain the original pre-earthquake landmark and streetscape values of the Cottage to the public.

6.2       The roof and roof structure will be retained and upgraded.

6.3       The rear and right walls which have collapsed will be stabilised using new technologies. They will then be enclosed in glass to allow the remaining areas of original walls to be viewed through toughened glass panels. This will enable visitors to view the interior of the building and offers innovative opportunities for interpretation. 

6.4       The collapsed chimney will not be rebuilt.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the community engagement proposed in section 2.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       This option does involve a significant decision which could specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions as the Cottage is located within an area called Ōhikaparuparu which is of great cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu whānui.

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       Community consultation was undertaken from 12 July until 14 August 2017. During that time two drop-in sessions were held at the Mount Pleasant Yacht Club near the Cottage.

6.9       Information about the project was sent the community groups in Ferrymead, Heathcote Valley, Mount Pleasant, Redcliffs and Sumner, as well as the wider heritage community and local libraries.

6.10    Forty submissions were received during the consultation phase. Thirty two (80 per cent), supported the stabilise or repair option, six (15 per cent) opposed this option, and two submitters (five per cent) chose the ‘have concerns’ response.

6.11    The project was paused in October 2017 while staff collated funding information relating to earthquake repairs to heritage buildings across the city for the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan. In November submitters were advised that the project had been put on hold and were referred to the Council’s have your say site which included an update and a link to all submissions and project team responses.

6.12    The project was reactivated in February 2018 following a Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolution seeking to remove Penfold’s Cob Cottage from the list of heritage buildings for which the Council is currently seeking expressions of interest from the community.

6.13    Prior to community consultation the Council’s project team engaged with Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT) to better understand the context of the Cottage and the area’s significance to early Maori. The area’s cultural values were highlighted in a report by MKT for an Archaeological Authority before drainage works were undertaken around the Cottage last year.

6.14    Submitters who strongly supported the stabilise and repair option emphasised the importance of retaining as much of the Cottage’s original sod and cob fabric as possible, and retaining the landmark building to keep its history alive. One submitter said she believed it was the only remaining sod Cottage in Christchurch. “I remember as a child being driven past and at times having to stop and peer in its windows, a real fairytale Cottage. The proportions and scale of this building have become a rarity in this day and age,” she commented. “It gives the opportunity to tell the stories linked to the area, the people involved and their lives from the Penfold family through to Ernie Parish.”

6.15    Six submitters are related to Ernie Parish, who twice organised the restoration of the Cottage in the 1940s, the second time after a fire. Two granddaughters commented that later he spent many Sundays telling visitors and locals about the history of the Cottage which was a memorial to the Canterbury pioneers. One of them added: “He would be so happy to know of the Council’s plans to repair and stabilise the Cottage. It was important to him that the Cottage be preserved for future generations to enjoy and learn about our early history,”

6.16    Ferrymead Heritage Park expressed strong support for the stabilisation and repair option saying it would like to integrate the Cottage into its heritage programme. The Education Manager said Penfold’s Cob Cottage could enhance what Ferrymead already has and provide the opportunity to work with a community group to show students not only how this Cottage has been repaired, but to be able to see how it was constructed.

6.17    Heritage New Zealand supported the stabilisation and repair option, saying the proposed modifications would ensure its survival and best protect heritage values.

6.18    The Christchurch Coastal Pathway Group wants to make the Cottage a feature along the pathway. It said it was very keen for the Cottage to be retained, mostly because of its historic value to the local community. As restoration would destroy some of the original fabric of the Cottage, it supports the stabilise and repair option - with graffiti resistant glass and interpretation.

6.19    Submitters representing the Christchurch Civic Trust and the Earth Building Association of New Zealand opposed the preferred stabilisation and repair option as they considered the Cottage should be rebuilt, on suitably enhanced footings, using reworked earth material. The Council’s project team advised them that this approach would destroy the original sod layers and therefore be contrary to the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

6.20    Other concerns expressed by submitters including traffic now passing close by, condensation on the glass, vandalism, ongoing maintenance costs, and lighting spill affecting residents on St Andrews Hill. They were advised that maintenance issues will be addressed when detailed designs are progressed.

6.21    Two submitters believed the Cottage was not original but this view is not supported by available information, including the 1870 deed between James Penfold and the Road Board of the Heathcote County. Another submitter said the stabilisation and repair option was a waste of money.

6.22    Several submitters referred to the need for appropriate planting around the Cottage, with the Coastal Pathway Group saying it could help to maintain this.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.24    Cost of Implementation – a cost estimate of approximately $342,750 excluding GST would be required to repair, upgrade, stabilise and enclose part of the building in toughened glass.  The Programme Manager has indicated that sufficient funds are available to complete the project, based on available information.

6.25    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - these are included in the operational building maintenance budget.

6.26    Funding source – to be funded by existing Capital Delivery (Community) budget.

Legal Implications

6.27    There no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.28    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

6.29    There is minimal risk with enabling the earthquake strengthening to be undertaken and using technology to allow the interior of the Cottage to be seen through protective glass.

Implementation

6.30    Implementation dependencies  - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

6.31    Implementation timeframe - dependent upon scheduling in the LTP.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.32    The advantages of this option include:

·   The largely intact full cob wall construction to the road frontage and to the side facing Ferrymead Bridge (i.e. the two most publically visible elevations) will be repaired and restored to their pre-earthquake form, allowing two of the four elevations to be seen in their intact and original form.

·   An extremely rare and locally unique example of very early sod construction (1860s) and later earth construction over time (1940-1990) will be protected for future generations with no further loss of original fabric. 

·   The key aspects of the heritage significance of the Cottage - historical and social, technological and craftsmanship and landmark values (i.e. the reason for its listing) will be retained and enhanced.

·   The roof and roof structure are retained.

·   This proposal will showcase best practice heritage conservation by Council, and offer enormous education and advocacy opportunities.

·   This proposal supports heritage conservation best practice and the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·   This proposal will engage visitors and involve the community in providing both an authentic visitor experience and interaction with heritage in an innovative new way which is unique in Canterbury.

·   The glazed areas would provide accessible viewing for those who could not previously access the Cottage.

·   It provides a record of an important historical event, namely the Canterbury earthquakes.

·   This option is the one which the community has demonstrated its support for through the consultation process. See above 6.10 – 6.18.

6.33    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The landmark and contextual values of the Cottage, which were diminished when it was damaged in the earthquakes, are not reinstated.

·   The loss of integrity of the original wall construction as a result of the earthquakes has reduced the ability to convey the architectural value of the Cottage. This option does not reinstate the original wall construction on two elevations.

·   The interior of the Cottage is not physically accessible to the public, although it is visible.

·   The lost chimney (an important part of the building demonstrating a former way of life) is not reinstated.

7.   Option 2 – Deconstruct and Reconstruct

Option Description

7.1       Penfold’s Cob Cottage would be fully deconstructed (taken down). It would then be reconstructed using modern technologies to achieve code compliance for a new building. The works would require the Cottage to be rebuilt in largely new materials and significant amounts of the original historic fabric would be removed. The roof structure could be upgraded and reused, the windows and door retained and some cob may be able to be reused as a coating finish. The reconstructed Cottage would be a replica of the original pre-earthquake Cottage.                        

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are consistent with the community engagement proposed in section 2.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option option does involve a significant decision which could specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions as the Cottage is located within an area called Ōhikaparuparu which is of great cultural significance to Ngāi Tūāhuriri and Ngāi Tahu whānui.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Refer to paragraphs 6.8 to 6.22.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.6       This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies: it would not support heritage conservation best practice or the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory. The reconstructed Cottage may no longer meet the threshold criteria for scheduling in the District Plan, and Heritage Protection Levels of Service would not be met.

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Total project cost is expected to be $436,000

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – these are included in the operational building maintenance budget.

7.9       Funding source - to be funded through the Long Term Plan process.

Legal Implications

7.10    There no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

7.11    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    The deconstruct and reconstruct option was not supported by most submitters during last year’s consultation process – with 32 submitters indicating they supported stabilisation and repair.  Only two of the six submitters who did not support stabilisation and repair - the Earth Building    Association if New Zealand and the Christchurch Civic Trust - specifically stated it should be rebuilt.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies  - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

7.14    Implementation timeframe - dependent upon scheduling of funding in the LTP.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   The architectural form of the Cottage is reconstructed to its pre-earthquake state.

·   The chimney could be reinstated.

·   The roof and roof structure are retained and upgraded and the windows and doors re-used.

·   There is the potential that a replica Cottage could make public access possible, allowing for use for example as a museum.

·   Accessible access could be included in the new building.

·   The visual integrity of the complete Cottage would be fully reinstated using replication.

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The reconstructed Cottage would need to achieve building code compliance for a new building, meaning much of the original heritage fabric could not be reused.

·   A considerable amount of heritage fabric would be removed during the deconstruction, resulting in a significant loss of historical, social, archaeological, technological and craftsmanship values.

·   The unique remaining piece of the original sod construction would be removed from its original context and location.

·   There is additional loss of the social, historical and technological values with the removal of the 1940's cob construction.

·   The interior of the Cottage would not necessarily be accessible to the public, or have an identified use once repaired.

·   The reconstructed Cottage would be a replica which does not support good heritage conservation practice or the principles of the ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) NZ Charter, to which Council is a signatory.

·   The resource consent required for the proposal may not be supported by Council staff, given the potential significant loss of heritage fabric and values.

·   The reconstructed Cottage may no longer meet the threshold criteria for scheduling in the District Plan.

·   Council would not be showcasing best conservation practice or fulfilling its role in protecting heritage for future generations.

·   This option does not have community support. Only two of the six submitters who did not support stabilisation and repair - the Earth Building Association if New Zealand and the Christchurch Civic Trust - specifically stated it should be rebuilt.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Penfold's Cob Cottage: submissions and responses

 

 

 

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

Russel Wedge - Senior Network Planner Parks

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Brent Smith - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board  – 14 March 2018

 

12.    Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan

Reference:

18/292648

Presenter(s):

Kirsty Mahoney,  Project Manager - Transport, 941 5330

 

 

 

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

 

(Staff recommendations adopted without change)

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) if the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Community Board meeting of the 26th February 2017; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 Applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the resolution as approved.

Part A

That the Linwood - Central - Heathcote Community Board recommends to Council to:

1.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

2.         Approve that the pathway on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance 70.5 metres west of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

3.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

4.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 150 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

5.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

6.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

7.         Approve that a signalised pedestrian and bicycle crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Ferry Road, located at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street, as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

8.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres. Note 1 applies.

9.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

10.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres. Note 1 applies.

11.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 120 metres. Note 1 applies.

12.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 applies.

13.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 1 applies.

14.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 23 metres. Note 1 applies.

15.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 1 applies.

16.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres. Note 1 applies.

17.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

18.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, between its intersection with Hopkins Street and its intersection with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

19.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

20.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Hopkins Street. Note 1 applies.

21.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 60 metres west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and continuing in a westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 106 metres west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes.

24.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 48 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

26.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 18 metre east of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 70.5 metres west of its intersection with Smith Street and continuing in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 21 metres. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport Act – Road User Rule: 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at point 21 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.  Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at a distance of 29 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of three minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

33.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at a distance of 12 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of thirty minutes. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Hopkins Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

38.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Smith Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

39.       Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and the creation of a pedestrian refuge on Ferry Road as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

 

Yani Johanson requested that his vote against the decision be recorded.

 

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

 

That the Council:

1.              Approve that the pathway on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

2.              Approve that the pathway on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance 70.5 metres west of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with section 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

3.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

4.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 150 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

5.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

6.              Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

7.              Approve that a signalised pedestrian and bicycle crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Ferry Road, located at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street, as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan

83

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Investigations Scheme Plan Woolston Park FR4 tp353101

97

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project - FR4 - Ferry Road Master Plan

Reference:

18/37131

Contact:

Kirsty Mahoney

kirsty.mahoney@ccc.govt.nz

03 941 5330

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on the outcome of community consultation, and to request that the Board approve the detailed design and construction of the Woolston Park Transportation Improvements Project (FR4), in general, and for the Board to request the Council to approve the special vehicle lanes.  This project is one of the projects listed in the Ferry Road Master Plan 2014.

1.2       This report is staff generated, following the completion of consultation on the project. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by comparing factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) if the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Community Board meeting of the 26th February 2017; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 Applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the resolution as approved.

That the Linwood - Central - Heathcote Community Board, recommends to Council:

1.         Approve that the pathway on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 m, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

2.         Approve that the pathway on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance 70.5 metres west of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 m, be resolved as a bi-directional shared pedestrian/bicycle pathway in accordance with sections 11.4 of the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004. Note 2 applies.

3.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

4.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound bicycles only, be established on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 150 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

5.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 105 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

6.         Approve that a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound bicycles only, be established on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This special vehicle lane is authorised under clause 13 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2008, and is therefore to be added to the Register of Roads or Traffic Lanes Restricted to Specific Classes of Vehicles. Note 2 applies.

7.         Approve that a signalised pedestrian and bicycle crossing be duly established and marked in accordance with sections 6 and 8.5 (3) of the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Devices 2004, on Ferry Road, located at a point 28 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street, as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

8.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 122 metres. Note 1 applies.

9.         Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

10.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres. Note 1 applies.

11.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 120 metres. Note 1 applies.

12.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 19 metres. Note 1 applies.

13.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 15 metres. Note 1 applies.

14.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 23 metres. Note 1 applies.

15.       Revoke all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 1 applies.

16.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 33 metres. Note 1 applies.

17.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 1 applies.

18.       Revoke all traffic controls on Ferry Road, between its intersection with Hopkins Street and its intersection with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

19.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Smith Street. Note 1 applies.

20.       Revoke all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Ferry Road with Hopkins Street. Note 1 applies.

21.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 60 meters west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and continuing in a westerly direction for a distance of 46 metres. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 106 metres west of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes.

24.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 48 metres. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the south side of Ferry Road, commencing at a distance of 48 metres east of its intersection with Hopkins Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of ten minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

26.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 34 metres. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road, commencing at its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 18 metres. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that a bus stop be created on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a point 18 metre east of its intersection with Smith Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the north side of Ferry Road commencing at a distance 70.5 meters west of its intersection with Smith Street and continuing in an easterly direction for a distance of 49 metres. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 21 metres. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4.1 of the Land Transport Act – Road User Rule: 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at point 21 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 8 metres.  Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Hopkins Street, commencing at a distance of 29 metres south of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 25 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of three minutes. This restriction is to apply between the times of 8.15am and 9.15 am and 2.30pm and 3.30pm on school days only.

33.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Hopkins Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approve that the parking of vehicles on the east side of Smith Street, commencing at a distance of 12 metres north of its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 11 metres, be restricted to a maximum parking time of thirty minutes. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the Stopping of vehicles be prohibited on the west side of Smith Street, commencing at its intersection with Ferry Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 16 metres. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Hopkins Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

38.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against the Smith Street approach to its intersection with Ferry Road, as detailed on Attachment A.

39.       Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and the creation of a pedestrian refuge on Ferry Road as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Signalised Crossing (preferred option). The preferred option is to remove the existing pedestrian zebra crossings on Ferry Road outside Te Waka Unua School and to the west of Smith Street, and replace these crossing points with a signalised pedestrian crossing, and a pedestrian refuge island respectively; narrow the intersection of Hopkins Street with Ferry Road to 8 metres wide, and install a 3.5m wide shared path leading to and from the signalised pedestrian crossing.

·     Option 2 – Signalised Crossing, including Bus Lanes. An alternative option investigated sought to remove the existing pedestrian crossing outside Te Waka School and to the west of Smith Street, and replace these crossing points with a signalised pedestrian crossing, and a pedestrian refuge island respectively, and install bus lanes leading to and from the signalised crossing point.

·     Option 3 – Do Nothing.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Improved pedestrian environment

·     Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR)

·     Improved safety for vulnerable users

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of one on-street car park outside PKs Dairy at 448 Ferry Road

·     Loss of two on-street car parks outside Mary Dixon Park.

 

5.   Context/Background

Ferry Road Master Plan

5.1       The Ferry Road Master Plan identifies the need to upgrade the existing crossings and parking provision to improve circulation for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers around the cluster of educational and recreational facilities near Te Waka Unua School.

5.2       The key objectives of the project are to improve the pedestrian and cycle environment, and increase parking, particularly in the area of Woolston Park, if required.

Existing Environment

5.3       Te Waka Unua School is located adjacent to Woolston Park, and is bounded along two frontages by Ferry Road and Hopkins Street.

5.4       There are two existing pedestrian zebra crossings located 120 metres apart, outside Te Waka Unua School on Ferry Road, and to the west of Smith Street on Ferry Road. Pedestrian counts have been undertaken between 2pm and 3pm for both pedestrian crossing locations, and the surveys show that the number of pedestrians crossing does not meet the warrant of 50 pedestrians per hour.  At school drop off and pick up times, the zebra crossing outside Te Waka Unua School is operated by a school patrol.  This crossing has been surveyed during the school pick up time, and the volume of pedestrians crossing during this time period is significant.

5.5       Commuter cyclists currently use on-road cycle lanes along Ferry Road to travel to and from the city, which are currently 1.2 metres wide.  North of Ferry Road there is the Rapanui / Shag Rock MCR on Linwood Avenue, and to the south there is the Heathcote Expressway MCR on Mackenzie Avenue.  Hopkins Street and Smith Street provide a strong link between these two MCRs. 

5.6       One of the objectives of the Ferry Road Master Plan is to investigate the current parking demand in the area, and increase parking opportunities as required.

5.7       A parking study has been carried out, and two surveys were completed to allow an understanding of what occurs in this area during the week when there is a parking demand from Te Waka Unua School, and at the weekend to determine the parking demand from the recreational use of Woolston Park.

5.8       With respect to the school parking, there were clear peaks in the parking demand on Ferry Road around school drop off and pick up times.   However, although there was a peak during the school hours, the car parking occupancy never went over 40% on Ferry Road.  All of this parking is located in what is considered an acceptable walking distance of less than 400 metres.  There was a high demand on Hopkins Street, and in the school rush more cars were parking than there was capacity for with either double parking or parking over driveways occurring.  This high demand is concentrated in the initial section of Hopkins Street between Ferry Road and Hobson Street.

5.9       At the weekend, the parking demand does differ to the weekday; however, parking occupancy is still low.  The parking demand on the side streets peaks at approximately 33% of the available spaces, and on Ferry Road it peaks at about 40%.  The parking duration differs between the two study periods, with people tending to stay longer on the weekend.

5.10    Based on the results of the parking survey, it is considered that there is no current need to increase parking supply in the vicinity of Te Waka Unua School or the Woolston Park playing fields.

5.11    A crash analysis has been carried out for the five year period (2012-2016) between Tilford Street and the pedestrian crossing to the west of Smith Street.  During the five year study period, there were a total of 23 crashes, comprising of 13 non-injury crashes, eight minor injury crashes, and two serious injury crashes.  There were no fatal crashes during this time period.  Of the 23 crashes, 14 were rear end / obstruction crashes, four were pedestrian crashes, three were loss of control, and two were crossing / turning crashes.

5.12    Of the four pedestrian crashes during the study period, three of these were minor and one was a serious injury crash.  There was only one cyclist crash recorded during the study period, which was a serious injury crash at the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road.

5.13    There were 17 crashes involving only vehicles, of which 13 were rear end / obstruction crashes, and ten of these involved the pedestrian crossings.

6.   Option 1 – Signalised Crossing at Te Waka Unua School (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The preferred option includes:

6.1.1   Removing the zebra crossing west of Smith Street and replacing with a pedestrian refuge, due to the low pedestrian counts.

6.1.2   Signalising the eastern zebra crossing, incorporating a cycle crossing.

6.1.3   Shared paths on the lead in to the signalised crossing to allow cyclists to access the crossing, and this includes widening the footpath.

6.1.4   Narrowing the intersection of Hopkins Street with Ferry Road to increase landscaping and calm traffic using Hopkins Street where there are large pedestrian numbers.  This reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians from 14 metres to 9 metres.

6.1.5   No alteration of the existing parking availability, other than what is required for the installation of the shared path and the signalised pedestrian crossing.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance include distribution of a consultation leaflet to affected stakeholders, residents, businesses, absentee owners and community groups within the area of the project; and receipt of feedback.

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       Early engagement discussions with Te Waka Unua School and Woolston Community Centre helped to inform the Have Your Say community consultation undertaken between 22 November 2017 and 13 December 2017.  In particular, discussions prior to and during the consultation period focused on the need for a safer crossing point on Ferry Road outside Te Waka Unua School.

6.6       Approximately 400 leaflets were delivered to the properties, both residential and business, located in the surrounding streets to Woolston Park and Te Waka Unua School.  The leaflet delivery was supplemented by the installation of a corflute sign and leaflet holder located on the Ferry Road frontage of Te Waka Unua School, as well as stakeholder and absentee owner distribution and online consultation.

6.7       During the consultation period, a well-attended drop-in information session was held in the grounds of Te Waka Unua School on 29 November 2017, leading to further discussion and meetings with key affected properties such as businesses near Smith Street, and the Woolston Development Project.

6.8       A total of 34 submissions were received by the close of the consultation period on 13 December 2017.  Sixteen were in support of the proposal, and fourteen were in support with some concerns raised.  Two submitters (including Spokes Canterbury) provided comments only, and two submitters indicated that they do not support the proposal.

6.9       Submitters in support included Kimihia Parents’ College and Environment Canterbury.  Submitters in support with concerns raised included Christchurch District Health Board (CDHB), PKs Dairy, Te Waka Unua School, Woolston Development Project, and Woolston Community Association.

Consultation Feedback and Project Team Responses

6.10    There was general support for the safety and access benefits of the proposed signalised pedestrian crossing.  However, two submitters requested changes to the location of the signalised crossing point – one closer to the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road, and the other (Principal of Te Waka Unua School) further away from the risks associated with the intersection of Hopkins Street and Ferry Road, towards Woolston, to accommodate the school’s pedestrian desire line and for better spacing from the Smith Street crossing.  The project team has considered the alternative locations for a signalised crossing, and the preferred option is considered to be the best location for the installation of the signalised crossing, given the number of driveways in the vicinity, the proximity of the various user groups, the classification of the side streets as local roads, which would not be signalised, and the available budget for the project.  It is noted that traffic signals are not installed on local roads, as this would attract more traffic to use the local road (i.e. Hopkins Street); would cause greater delays along Ferry Road; and, would disadvantage users of the pedestrian crossing, which is one of the key objectives of this project.

6.11    Environment Canterbury supported the wider shared footpath, the new signalised pedestrian crossing, and the pedestrian refuge on Ferry Road to the west of Smith Street, for Purple Line passengers.  Environment Canterbury also supported the pedestrian refuge island, which will allow traffic to keep flowing.  However, CDHB strongly requested the retention of the pedestrian zebra crossing to the west of Smith Street on Ferry Road, particularly given the location of a preschool in Smith Street.  It is proposed to remove the pedestrian zebra crossing to the west of Smith Street and replace this with a pedestrian refuge island.  The pedestrian survey undertaken indicates that low pedestrian numbers using this crossing do not warrant a zebra pedestrian crossing, and it is considered that the refuge island will provide a safer crossing point at peak times than the existing zebra crossing.

6.12    Four submitters expressed concerns about safety and access issues associated with the proposed narrowing of Hopkins Street at the intersection with Ferry Road.  These concerns included how this narrowing would affect school drop-off and pick-up as many parents prefer to use Hopkins Street for this purpose, and experience issues when trying to exit from Hopkins Street onto Ferry Road at peak times.  The project team has recommended that the western lane on Hopkins Street be widened from 3 metres to 5 metres as a result of consultation, which would increase the intersection width at Hopkins Street / Ferry Road to 9 metres.  This will allow space for two informal lanes of traffic to form at peak times, allowing both a left and right turn exit from Hopkins Street onto Ferry Road.

6.13    Two submitters including the CDHB, requested a 40kph speed limit in the project area, one stipulating, along with another individual submitter that Ferry Road is not narrowed. 

6.14    In response to the request for a 40kph speed limit, the project team notes that there are several criteria that must be met to implement a 40 kph speed limit.  At this location, it is not proposed as these criteria cannot be met.  In particular, there are existing safe facilities in place for groups of pedestrians to cross Ferry Road.  The preferred option enhances this with the provision of a signalised crossing point, which allows for groups of pedestrians to safely cross Ferry Road.  Additionally, the median speed environment on weekdays (Monday to Friday) has been recorded at 50kph (in November 2017), which is not high enough to warrant introducing a lower speed environment.

6.15    The project team notes that Ferry Road will be narrowed as part of the preferred option with the removal of on-street parking spaces in the vicinity of the signalised crossing only.  The traffic lane widths are 3.2 metres wide, and the cycle lanes are 1.6 metres wide in the area of the signalised crossing with a 3.5 metre wide shared pathway on either side of the road.  The flush median strip in the centre of the road is 1.2 metres wide, which provides a total carriageway width of 10.8 metres, and 7 metres of shared pathway.

6.16    There was a request for disabled parking access to Woolston Community Centre, and an objection from the Woolston Development Project about further restrictions to access that would result from the proposed loss of parking outside their facility, particularly for elderly and mobility impaired users.  In addition, a retail business on the corner of Smith Street was opposed to the loss of on-street adjacent parking on Ferry Road.  This submitter also raised concerns about the effects of construction on their business, having already been adversely affected by recent works at Smith Street.

6.17    The project team has investigated the inclusion of a mobility parking space on Hopkins Street near the intersection with Ferry Road, and this has been included as a result of consultation.  A mobility parking space on Ferry Road is not considered safe due to the available width for parking, combined with adjacent traffic volumes and the on-street cycle lane.  A traffic volume count undertaken between 9 November and 17 November 2017 indicates a weekday average peak total of 1580 vehicles along Ferry Road. 

6.18    An additional P10 parking space will be added just to the west of PKs Dairy to provide on-street parking for dairy users, as a result of consultation.

6.19    The parking survey carried out during the scheme design phase indicates that there is adequate parking available along both sides of Ferry Road during the day.  The project team has investigated the potential for time-restricted on-street parking spaces to assist with the parking needs of the Woolston Development Project, as well as the retail business on the corner of Smith Street and Ferry Road.  A P30 is proposed on Smith Street to provide on-street parking for the retail business at the corner of Smith Street and Ferry Road, as a result of consultation.  There is insufficient safe on-street parking space available directly outside the business on Ferry Road.  Based on the parking survey, and the availability of on-street parking along Ferry Road during the day, no further time restrictions are proposed.

6.20    A submitter raised concerns about access and parking for their home in the project area in Ferry Road.  The project team notes that on-street car parking is still available for this submitter, and the median is a flush median (i.e. white painted road marking), so this can be driven across allowing access to and from the submitter’s home.

6.21    One submitter raised a concern that the alignment of westbound traffic and the cycle lane will push cyclists into the live traffic lane and suggested removal or indentation of parking, or removal or reduction of the kerb build-out on the northern side of Ferry Road.  Another submitter requested an extension of the shared path to the entrance of Woolston Park. 

6.22    The project team has checked this alignment, and confirms that it has been designed to meet the requirements for a 50kph speed environment.

6.23    The project team has investigated the cost of extending the shared pathway to Woolston Park, and this is beyond the scope of the project budget.  It is also noted that the request for sharrows to be used at this location is not considered appropriate, as sharrows are used on cycleways rather than shared paths.

6.24    One submitter considers that separated cycleways are needed everywhere throughout the city and should take priority over grass berms; however, another submitter does not see the need for a shared path and a cycleway outside Te Waka Unua School, where the former creates a risk for pedestrians.

6.25    The project team notes that green paint will be installed across the intersections and at the approach and departure from the crossing points (i.e. at the pedestrian refuge island and signalised crossing).  Cycle lanes will be 1.8 metres wide, except in the vicinity of the signalised crossing where there is no on-street car parking, and the cycle lanes will be 1.6 metres wide.  Commuter cyclists along Ferry Road are anticipated to use the on-road cycle lane.  Recreational cyclists and school users are anticipated to use the shared pathway when travelling to / from Te Waka Unua School, Woolston Park and in the future as a link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock MCR, and the Heathcote Expressway MCR.

6.26    One submitter requested a bus shelter to be installed at 481 Ferry Road.  Kimihia Parents’ College requested more visible smoke free signage in adjacent green space.  These requests will be forwarded to the relevant Council staff to investigate.

6.27    In summary, the key changes to the scheme plan as a result of the consultation include:

·   Widening of the intersection at Hopkins Street to 9 metres, with a 5-metre wide traffic lane exiting Hopkins Street.

·   Implementation of two P10 on-street parking spaces outside and to the west of PKs Dairy.

·   Implementation of one P30 on-street parking space on Smith Street, close to the intersection with Ferry Road.

·   Implementation of one mobility parking space on Hopkins Street, close to the intersection with Ferry Road.

6.28    Submitters have been sent a letter, including a summary of consultation and proposed changes to the plan for consultation, as well as details of the Community Board decision meeting, including how to request speaking rights, should they wish.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.30    Cost of Implementation – the preliminary estimate for this project is $674,001.

6.31    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minor increase in long-term maintenance costs due to the installation of the signals hardware, to be covered by existing maintenance budgets.

6.32    Funding source – This project is funded through the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.  Annual Plan funding is $12,233 in FY17, $74,167 in FY18 and $416,976 in FY19, being a total of $503,376.  A change request to move additional funding into the project from the Masterplan Programme in FY19 will be processed following final approval of the Long Term Plan.  NZTA funding will be sought for eligible activities within this project.

Legal Implications

6.33    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

6.34    This report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

6.35    There are no legal implications beyond Christchurch City Council’s rights as the Road Controlling Authority.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.36    There is a risk of pedestrian and cyclist conflict along the shared pathway at either side of the signalised crossing.  There is also a risk of school users not utilising the signalised crossing point.  Both of this risks can be mitigated by education and safety messaging.

6.36.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be low.

6.36.2 Planned treatments include implementation of a signalised pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian refuge island to replace the existing pedestrian zebra crossings to the east and west of Smith Street respectively.  In addition, a shared pathway at the entry / exit for the signalised crossing is proposed.

Implementation

6.37    Implementation timeframe – There is a desire by the community to implement this project as soon as practicable given the crash history and near miss history associated with this crossing point.  It is anticipated that following detailed design and tender processes are carried out, construction could commence in mid-2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.38    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved pedestrian environment

·   Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR)

·   Improved safety for vulnerable users

6.39    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of on-street parking outside 497 and 499 Ferry Road for the signalised crossing.

·   Loss of one on-street car park outside PKs Dairy at 448 Ferry Road.

7.   Option 2 – Signalised Crossing at Te Waka Unua School, including bus lanes

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 includes:

7.1.1   Removing the zebra crossing west of Smith Street and replacing with a pedestrian refuge, due to the low pedestrian counts.

7.1.2   Signalising the eastern zebra crossing, incorporating a cycle crossing.

7.1.3   Shared paths on the lead in to the signalised crossing to allow cyclists to access the crossing, this does not include widening the paths.

7.1.4   Provide bus lanes leading into the zebra crossing to provide for future passenger transport project.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Community views were not obtained on this option.  There were only obtained for the preferred option. There is general support from the community for the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – Only the preferred option has been costed.  The installation of bus lanes in addition to the signalised pedestrian crossing and pedestrian refuge island, and shared pathway is anticipated to be a higher cost than the preferred option.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Minor increase in long-term maintenance costs due to the installation of the signals hardware, to be covered by existing maintenance budgets.

7.9       Funding source – This project is funded through the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.  Annual Plan funding is $74,167 in 2017/18 and $416,976 in 2018/19. Additional funding will be sought from savings within the programme. NZTA funding will be sought for eligible activities within this project.

Legal Implications

7.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk of pedestrian and cyclist conflict along the shared pathway at either side of the signalised crossing.  There is also a risk of school users not utilising the signalised crossing point.  Both of this risks can be mitigated by education and safety messaging.   

7.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatments are implemented will be low.

7.11.2 Planned treatments include implementation of a signalised pedestrian crossing and a pedestrian refuge island to replace the existing pedestrian zebra crossings to the east and west of Smith Street respectively, along with bus lanes at the approaches to the signalised crossing. 

Implementation

7.12    Implementation timeframe – There is a desire by the community to implement the signalised pedestrian crossing as soon as practicable given the crash history and near miss history associated with this crossing point.  If this option were to be approved, further consultation would be required, and this would mean that construction would be anticipated to start in mid-2019.  It is considered that the implementation of bus lanes is not preferred as observations indicate that there is not a significant delay to buses in this location currently.  It is recommended that any bus lane project should include investigation of the wider corridor to ensure real benefits to public transport are realised along the entire corridor.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improved pedestrian environment.

·   Improved cycling environment, including a strong link between the Rapanui / Shag Rock and Heathcote Expressway Major Cycleway Routes (MCR).

·   Improved safety for vulnerable users.

·   Provision for any future bus priority scheme, which may occur as this is a core public transport corridor, although there is no current proposal in the LTP for creating bus priority in this location.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No shared paths for pedestrians and cyclists.

·   Loss of approximately 20 on-street parking spaces for the bus lanes, which is all the existing parking along Ferry Road in the vicinity of the signalised pedestrian crossing.

8.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       This option would result in no changes being made to the existing pedestrian crossing points or narrowing of Hopkins Street.  The existing environment would remain in place.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are to advise key stakeholders and submitters on the preferred scheme, that the project is not proceeding.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Community view were not requested or obtained on this option.  They were only requested and obtained for the preferred option.  There is general support from the submitters on the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.6       This option is inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.

8.6.1   Inconsistency – The Do Nothing option would not meet the Level of Service: 10.0.31 Protect vulnerable users - minimise the number of fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists.  This option would also be inconsistent with the Ferry Road Master Plan adopted by Council in May 2014.  At its meeting held on 6 July 2017, Council noted that if planning is able to be expedited such that this project is able to be commenced in FY17/18, it requested staff to bring back funding from FY18/19 (CNCL/2017/00161).

8.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – The Do Nothing option would not provide improvement to the existing unsafe environment for vulnerable users that utilise the crossing points at peak times.

8.6.3   Amendment necessary – implement preferred option to meet the Level of Service to protect vulnerable users and minimise the number of near hits and fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists at this location.

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.9       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

8.10    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations

8.11    There is a risk of further crashes and more serious injuries to pedestrians, and cyclists in particular, should the existing environment remain.

8.12    Given the level of support for the preferred option, there is a risk to Council’s reputation if the improvements are not implemented.

Implementation

8.13    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Initial cost savings

·   Retention of existing on-street parking in the area of the proposed signalised crossing.

8.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No improvement to the existing pedestrian and cycle environment.

·   None of the other advantages of the preferred option.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Investigations Scheme Plan Woolston Park FR4 tp353101

 

 

 

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

Kirsty Mahoney - Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

13.    Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

18/114625

Presenter(s):

Pam Richardson, Chair of Banks Peninsula Community Board
Joan Blatchford, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

A joint meeting of the Banks Peninsula and Spreydon-Cashmere Community Boards was held on 2 March 2018 to consider proposed double yellow (No Overtaking) lines and a reduced speed limit for Dyers Pass Road.  The Banks Peninsula Board resolved under delegation:

•    To not approve the installation of no passing lines along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a southerly direction for 2.94 kilometres.

         The Board was influenced in its decision by the feedback of the Mt. Herbert community members who had submitted on the proposal to install the no passing lines, and who are the predominant users of Dyers Pass Road from the Banks Peninsula Ward.

         The Board has also requested that staff report back on other suggested safety improvements for Dyers Pass Road, such as signage and speed guidance.

The Banks Peninsula Community Board held meetings on 12 February, 26 February and 12 March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Improved pedestrian access and bus stop changes approved for Oxford and Winchester Streets -– the Board approved Option 2 for pedestrian and bus stop improvements in Lyttelton.  The preferred option recommended by staff was Option 1.  However the Board was concerned at the proposed loss of on street parking if Option 1 was implemented.  Therefore after balancing safety improvements against the overall loss of parking, in an area where parking was already at a premium, members decided to support Option 2.

·   Okains Bay Water Supply Options – the Board, after meeting twice with Okains Bay residents, considered a report on possible options for a reticulated water supply for that community.  The Board decided to make a submission to the Long Term Plan requesting that Council builds a new water supply scheme for Okains Bay so that it meets the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand.  The Board noted that the Council as operator of the Okains Bay camp ground has been treated as exempt from having to provide a potable water supply, under the Camping-Grounds Regulations 1985, but that whilst an exemption is currently in place until 30 June 2019, there is no expectation that a further exemption will be granted.

·   Community Funding on Banks Peninsula – the Board approved:

·     A grant of $438 to the Little River Craft Station Inc. towards copy for the website.

·     A grant of $2,400 to the Diamond Harbour Youth and Community Trust towards the Diamond Harbour Youth Project.

·     A grant of $3,000 to the Canterbury Society of Arts t/a CoCA Centre of Contemporary Art towards the 2018 Wakaroa Pigeon Bay Art Trail.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

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

4.1       Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit – Dyers Pass Road.

The Board jointly considered this report with the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and both Boards’ consideration and recommendations of the report will be considered by the Council at this meeting.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Lyttelton Harbour Wastewater Project  

5.1       Council contractors are starting work this month on phase two of this four phase project aimed at ending routine discharges of wastewater into Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupō.  A blessing was held at Naval Point in Lyttelton last month, ahead of construction starting.

Akaroa Wastewater Project  

5.2       The Akaroa Treated Wastewater Reuse Options Working Party continues to meet to consider the advantages, disadvantages, efficiency, effectiveness, appropriateness, cost effectiveness and effects of the short-listed reuse of treated wastewater options as presented by Council staff for the Akaroa wastewater system.  It is expected that options for public consideration will be ready for a consultation process in July/August.

5.3       A community update session was held on Wednesday 4 April in Akaroa.

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       Public Forums - the Board has had a number of speakers at the Public Forums over recent meetings.  Issues raised include:

-      Repairs to the Akaroa Wharf to address health and safety concerns

-      Questions over a closed track on L’Aube Hill in Akaroa

-      Offer by Comte de Paris Group to work with Council on repairing earthquake damaged graves of early settlers in Akaroa, and to provide interpretation signage at Akaroa cemeteries.

-      Removal of unlicensed structures from Akaroa Wharf (two speakers)

-      Impacts of freedom camping in Akaroa (five speakers)

-      Missing visitor information signage in Lyttelton

-      Improvements needed to the Women’s Suffrage mural on Bridal Path Road

-      Information and an invitation to the Annual Port Levy Boating Regatta

6.2       Freedom Camping – following the concerns raised by public forum speakers and personal approaches to Community Board members, the Board had a workshop with staff from a number of Council Units to discuss possible amendments to the Freedom Camping Bylaw and enforcement of the current bylaw.  The workshop also discussed compliance with the Certified Self Contained criteria from the bylaw, as well as appropriate signage and public information.  As an outcome of the workshop, it is likely the Board will make a recommendation to the Council asking it to consider reviewing the Freedom Camping Bylaw.

6.3       Lyttelton Skatepark Opening – the redesigned and renovated Lyttelton Skatepark was officially re-opened on Monday 26 February.  The opening was supported by the local Youth Group.  Part of the funding for the project was a large donation from South Port which is the port company operating at Bluff.  The donation was to give something to the people of the Lyttelton community who had lost so much in the earthquakes.

6.4       Reserve Management Plans – the Board has heard about the beginning of a project to prepare a management plan to cover those reserves that currently have Reserve Management Committees associated with them, and possibly to also cover all other reserves on Banks Peninsula (excluding identified reserves). 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board approved its Banks Peninsula Community Board Plan for 2017-19 on 31 July 2017. This Plan, developed by talking with the community, is the Board’s vision for Banks Peninsula’s future.

7.2       The Board received the attached six-monthly update on progress against the Community Board Plan at its 12 March meeting. Attachment A

7.3       The Board has received an update from roading staff, so members could better understand the detail around the roading programme for Banks Peninsula and continue to advocate for the community advancing the goal in the Community Board Plan that “Core infrastructure is provided, well maintained and future-proofed”.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest 

8.1       Akaroa Wharf Users Meeting – staff and Board members have met twice with users and stakeholders of the Akaroa Wharf to discuss operational matters.  Good progress has been made on this.

8.2       Akaroa Issues Working Party – the Working Party continues to meet to try to improve maintenance issues in Akaroa.  The Working Party was initiated by the Council following the Annual Plan process in 2016/17 where many Akaroa residents complained about maintenance issues around the town.  The Working Party is a mix of community members and Community Board members supported by staff.  The Working Party has recently made a number of recommendations to the Board to be considered as part of its LTP submission deliberations, including a request for sand on the Akaroa Beach, a landscape plan to address health and safety concerns at the beach and a programme to replace the current rubbish bins in Akaroa with more suitably designed ones.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Banks Peninsula Community Board - Update on Progress Against Board Plan

103

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Approved By

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

14.    Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

18/229868

Presenter(s):

Karolin Potter, Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

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

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for March 2018.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

A joint meeting of the Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards was held on 2 March 2018. The following decision was made by the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board under delegation at that meeting:

•       Approval of the installation of no passing lines along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending southerly for 3.45 kilometres.

 

The Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held meetings on 6th and 16th March 2018.  Decisions made under delegation were:

•       Approval of a grant of $750 from the Spreydon-Cashmere 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to St Thomas of Canterbury College towards the participation of Jonty Wood, Rourke Johnson and Epati Hohaia-Tolovaa in the St Thomas of Canterbury College team at the National 3x3 Basketball Tournament in Tauranga on 20-24 March 2018.

•       Approval of a grant of $285 from the Spreydon-Cashmere 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to the C3 Church towards the Cameo Day Trip to Ohinetai Gardens, Governors Bay in April 2018.

•       Approval of a grant of $750 from the Spreydon-Cashmere 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to St Martins Bowls Incorporated towards the Purchase of Bowls for Coaching Children and Youth.

•       Approval of a grant of $1,500 from the Spreydon-Cashmere 2017/18 Discretionary Response Fund to Korfball New Zealand towards the participation of Jaxon Lange, Ynys Bach-Strong and Helena Tulia in the Under 17 Korfball World Cup in the Netherlands 23-24 June 2018.

•       Approval of a grant of $500 from the Spreydon-Cashmere 2017/18 Youth Achievement and Development Scheme to Emma Hartshaw towards her participation in the Young Ambassadors Tour 2018 to France.

 

 

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following report presenting Part A recommendations from the Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards is included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1          Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass                         Road

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Dyers Pass Road yellow lines.

A joint meeting of the Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards was held on 2nd March 2018 to consider a report on a proposal for the installation of ‘No passing Lines’ on Dyers Pass Road and a speed limit change from, 70 kilometres per hour and 100 kilometres per hour to 60 kilometres per hour on Dyers Pass Road from Governors Bay to the start of the existing 50 kilometres per hour limit area near Hackthorne Road. The proposal was developed by staff to help address road safety risk on Dyers Pass Road.

Widespread consultation attracted 538 submissions. A joint meeting of the Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards was held on 2 March 2018 to consider the proposals. Nine groups and residents spoke on the report at the meeting providing a range of views on the proposals.

In looking at the proposals and the feedback received the Boards discussed the legal implications of the proposed double yellow no passing lines and whether motorists would be entitled to cross the line to overtake a cyclist. It was noted that there seemed to be a lack of clarity on the matter and that despite proposed road signage motorists may well be of the view that they could only pass a cyclist within the line. This may lead to a risk of cyclists being squeezed to the extreme left of the road in an overtaking manoeuvre. Members also discussed the need for any changes to be supported by a public awareness and education programme.

Each Board made a separate decision on the ‘No passing Lines’ proposal in so far as it affects its Board area. In the end the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board approved the installation of no passing lines along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending southerly for 3.45 kilometres. The Banks Peninsula Community Board resolved not to approve the installation of no passing lines along the centre of the length of Dyers Pass Road in its area. Both Boards decided to recommend to the Council that it change the speed limit on the road to 60 kilometres per hour. Refer to clause 4.1.

 

6.   Significant Community Issues, Events and Projects in the Board Area

6.1       Pedestrian Access Dyers Pass and Hackthorne Roads intersection

Residents have expressed concern at the blocking of pedestrian access near the intersection of Hackthorne and Dyers Pass Roads.  A walkway on the road reserve that runs alongside the intersection adjacent to the former Masonic Lodge has been blocked by rock landscaping placed on the area. This has implications for pedestrian safety as people can no longer walk around the corner without having to cross the busy Dyers Pass Road.

Staff have investigated and confirmed that the rock landscaping has been undertaken within the road reserve/legal road without permission. Staff are investigating who placed the rock landscape within the road corridor and will require removal.

6.2       St Martins Roundabout

Concern has been expressed about the safety of the busy roundabout at the junction of St Martins and Centaurus Roads. Traffic at the roundabout close to St Martins School is complicated by an awkward entry from Armstrong Avenue and by vehicles entering and exiting the nearby service station. Board members have been made aware of fears for the safety of in and about the roundabout particularly the large number of children travelling to and from St Martins School. Staff are currently working with the school to identify possible improvements that could be made including a reduced school speed zone with appropriate electronic signage.

6.3       Ngaio Marsh House

The Board recently received a presentation from the Trustees of the Ngaio Marsh House and Heritage Trust. The house designed by leading Christchurch architect Samuel Hurst Seager was built in Sherwood Lane Cashmere in 1907. It was the family home of Dame Ngaio, world-renowned crime fiction writer and eminent Shakespearian theatre producer and she lived there from childhood until her death in 1982.  Since then the property has been held by the trust, and is cared for by a small group of trustees, and a hard working group of friends. 

The house which has been enlarged over the years, remains much as Dame Ngaio left it contains furniture, family treasures and antiques, artwork and many personal items owned by Dame Ngaio. The trust offers tours of the house for visitors to gain an understanding of her life and work as well as insight into her private world. The house is visited by many people from all over the world.

As the house is over 100 years old, it is now needing some upkeep, such as the roof replacement and insulation. Maintenance of the grounds is also required with a line of trees, planted by Dame Ngaio’s father around the building time, recently needing to be removed.  Plans are underway to replace these with suitable species.  The Trust’s sources of income include the rental of a flat on the property and proceeds from annual tour of heritage houses during Heritage Week.

6.4       Addington History Book

The Addington Neighbourhood Association has set the date of 25 June to launch the book about Addington history by writer John Wilson. The former Spreydon/Heathcote Community Board originally supported the initiation of the project and more recently the Spreydon-Cashmere and Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Boards have provided Discretionary Response Fund grants towards the costs of publication. The association has worked to secure other funding as well, so that the price of the book is within reach of local people who may have little discretionary spending money.  The launch is likely to be held at the St Mary's Church in Church Square.

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       Community Board Plan Review

Staff are working through the actions identified at the recent Board workshop to review the progress made on the Community Board Plan.

The plan identifies strong communities as an objective and indicates that in pursuance of this the Board will support initiatives that make it easier for people to know who and what is available in neighbourhoods. There has been discussion for some time around the need for an initiative that promotes the role of Community Boards.  In particular the utility of a generic pamphlet identifying local community boards, describing their role and providing contact details and links has been discussed. This idea is one that the Board is looking at pursuing as a Community Board Plan action and staff advice has been requested on the feasibility of the proposal.

 

 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest 

8.1       Pacific Series 2017

The Pacific Series 2017, a celebration of Christchurch Pacific, Maori and Ethnic communities through a rugby league tournament and cultural event series was held in Hoon Hay Park over the weekend of 16-19 November 2017.

Discretionary Response Fund grants for the staging of this city wide event were made by the Spreydon-Cashmere, Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Coastal-Burwood Community Boards.

The Tournament brought together 600 participants over 30 teams. The 60 games were played enthusiastically and in good spirit and were watched by approximately 10,000 spectators over the three days of the event.

The Pacific Series participants and supporters engaged in a formal evening (fono) prior to the tournament, where there was a focus on suicide prevention and mental health to address the high incidence of Youth suicide experienced by the Pacific and Maori populations. 

The event was nominated for the Canterbury Sports and Recreation Event of the Year, becoming a finalist alongside International events including Canterbury Crusaders vs British and Irish Lions and International Hockey Test Series Women’s Black Sticks vs USA. In the end the Pacific Series was awarded the Canterbury Sports and Recreation Rugby League Event of the Year.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

Report from Joint Meeting - Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards  – 2 March 2018

 

15.    Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road

Reference:

18/225952

Presenter(s):

John Dore, Traffic Engineer

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1.         Approves that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending in a southerly direction for 3.45 kilometres as shown on Attachment A.

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board:

2.         Approves that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a southerly direction for 2.94 kilometres as shown on Attachment A.

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommends that Council:

3.         Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 3a and  3b and includes the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at a   point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

4.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 3a and 3b come into force once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following Council approval.

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends that Council:

5.         Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 5a and 5b and includes the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to a point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay Road.

b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to a point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay Road.

3.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 5a and 5b come into force once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following Council approval.

 

2.  Joint Meeting - Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards Decisions Under Delegation

 

Community Board Resolved JSBB/2018/00001

(Original Staff recommendation adopted without change)

Part C

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board:

1.         Approves that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending in a southerly direction for 3.45 kilometres as shown on Attachment A to the Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road report.

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board:

2.         Does not approve that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a southerly direction for 2.94 kilometres as shown on Attachment A Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road.

 

3.   Joint Meeting - Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

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

1.         Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 1a and 1b and includes the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at a point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at a point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

2.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 1a and 1b come into force once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following Council approval

3.         Pursue a strong communication and education programme in relation to the decisions on the changes in Dyers Pass Road

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends that the Council:

4.         Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 3a and 3b and includes the resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to a point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay Road.

b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to a point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay Road.

5.         Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 3a and 3b come into force once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following Council approval.

6.         Pursue a strong communication and education programme in relation to the decisions on the changes to Dyers Pass Road

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road

124

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Preferred Option

135

b

Road Safety Risk Maps

136

c

Accident Distribution

138

d

Speed Counts and Traffic Volume

139

e

Speed Distribution

140

f

Accident Trends

141

g

Response to Submitters

142

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

Proposed No Overtaking Lines and 60 Kilometres per Hour Speed Limit - Dyers Pass Road

Reference:

17/804982

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 Joint Meeting - Spreydon-Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards to consider:

·    Approval of ‘No passing Lines’ on Dyers Pass Road as shown on Attachment A

·    Recommendation that Council approves a posted speed limit change from, 70 kilometres per hour and 100 kilometres per hour  to 60 kilometres per hour on Dyers Pass Road from Governors Bay to the existing 50 kilometres per hour limit near Hackthorne Road as shown on Attachment A

·    Resolve that Traffic Operations staff report on the feasibility to install variable speed or warning signs on Dyers Pass Road approaches to its intersection with Summit Road.

1.2       In addition to no passing lines and a change in speed limit, Traffic Operations propose to install new raised reflective pavement markers and curve advisory signage. These improvements do not require a decision from the community boards or Council to implement.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated to help address road safety risk on Dyers Pass Road.

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 the number of people who drive the route at more than 60km/h and the minimal increase in travel time for regular users.

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

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations.

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board and Banks Peninsula Community Board:

1.         Approves that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending in a southerly direction for 3.45 kilometres as shown on Attachment A.

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board:

2.         Approves that no passing lines be installed along the centre of Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending in a southerly direction for 2.94 kilometres as shown on Attachment A.

That the Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board recommends that Council:

3.            Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw           2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 3a and  3b and includes the                   resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

                a.         Revoke the 70 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at a                      point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and extending                                           generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

                b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour,                                      commencing at a point 340 metres south of its intersection with Hackthorne Road and                    extending generally in a southerly direction to its intersection with Summit Road.

4.            Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 3a and 3b come into force once    the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following                             Council approval.

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board recommends that Council:

5.            Approves that pursuant to Part 4 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw           2017, speed limits be revoked and set as listed below in clauses 5a and 5b and includes the                    resulting changes in the Christchurch City Register of Speed Limits and Speed Limit Maps:

                a.         Revoke the 100 kilometres per hour speed limit on Dyers Pass Road, commencing at its                  intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a southerly direction to a                                  point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay Road.

                b.         Approve the speed limit of Dyers Pass Road be set at 60 kilometres per hour,                                      commencing at its intersection with Summit Road and extending generally in a                                   southerly direction to a point 340 metres north of its intersection with Governors Bay                               Road.

6.            Approves that the speed limit changes listed above in clauses 5a and 5b come into force                            once the new speed limit signs have been installed, approximately 20 working days following               Council approval.

 

 

 

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 – Change speed limit from 70 kilometres per hour and 100 kilometres per hour to a consistent safe appropriate speed of 60 kilometres per hour as shown on Attachment A (preferred option) and install no passing lines.

·    Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Aims to lower speeds further with a high potential to reduce death and serious injury accidents

·    Provide clarity and confirmation that it is not safe to overtake a motor vehicle

·    Low cost solution to provide reduction in accidents

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Creates minor delay to small portion of daily commuters

·    Vehicles being stuck behind slow motor vehicles and not being legally permitted to pass

 

5.   Context/Background

Summary

5.1       Attachment B shows the calculated road safety risk of Dyers Pass Road compared to all other roads within Christchurch City Councils control. As shown the measured personal risk is high and the collective risk is medium high. Dyers Pass Road has the highest risk rating compared to other rural roads controlled by Council on Banks Peninsula. Road safety risk and accident data clearly show there is a significant road safety problem on Dyers Pass Road.

5.2       NZTA speed management guidelines identifies Dyers Pass Road as high benefit site for speed management and a first priority intervention where there is the greatest potential to reduce death and serious injuries.

5.3       The proposed change in posted legal speed limit from 70 kilometres per hour and 100 kilometres per hour on the City and Banks Peninsula sides respectively to 60 kilometres per hour across the entire Dyers Pass route as shown on Attachment A – aims to reduce the average actual vehicle speeds. A reduction in speed reduces the chance of an accident by allowing a vehicle to stop over a shorter distance and lower speed reduces the risk of a death or serious injury if an accident occurs.

5.4       The proposed double yellow lines aim to reduce the number of overtaking and head on accidents by providing a clear message that it is illegal and unsafe to overtake another motor vehicle. The double yellow lines also narrow road lanes and may help lower vehicle speeds.

5.5       There are currently limited opportunities to pass a slower vehicle. No passing lines and a reduced posted speed limit will remove freedom to pass resulting in increased travel times. The increase in travel times over a short route are low and discussed further in paragraph 5.26.

5.6       Motor vehicles can legally cross the double yellow lines to overtake a cyclist. To clarify this additional signage has been added to the route as shown on Attachment A. It is expected that double yellow lines will make motor vehicles take more care when passing a cyclist and cars will not queue for long periods behind a cyclist.

Road Safety Risk and Distribution of Accidents

5.7       Christchurch City Council uses software that calculates road safety risk on their network based on a methodology developed by NZTA (KiwiRap). The software uses existing reported death or serious injury accidents and also factors in the probabilities of a recorded minor injury accident resulting in a death or serious injury. This software allows Council to compare the road safety risk of all roads within Council’s control.

5.8       KiwiRap looks at two different measures of risk, Personal and Collective. The key differences are:

·   Collective Risk, is the number of accidents per kilometre

·   Personal Risk, is the number of accidents that have happened per 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel on the section of road.

5.9       Personal risk is the danger to each individual using the road. If two roads of the same length have the same number of accidents, Personal Risk is higher for the road with the lowest traffic volume.

5.10    Dyers Pass Road has a high Personal Risk and a medium high number of accidents per kilometre of road (Collective Risk).

5.11    Attachment C shows the location of accidents along the route recorded from 2007-1016, accidents that occurred within 50m of each other have been grouped together as one location. The map shows a relatively even distribution of accidents across the entire route, some locations have a higher concentration of recorded accidents but do not form a significant portion of the total. It is also noted that reporting of accident location is reliant on a reported distance from a nearby intersection, given there are few intersections along Dyers Pass Rd the accuracy of reporting is unreliable and it is reasonable that some of the reported locations could be out by hundreds of metres.

5.12    The types of accident trends identified are typical across the route and therefore an area wide treatment is proposed.

5.13    The lower section of Dyers Pass Road on the Governors Bay side has a lower level of reported accidents compared to balance of the route. However the accidents along this section are considered high relative to other roads in Christchurch and given the similar nature of this section of Dyers Pass Road, an area wide treatment is also applicable here.

Scope of Improvements

5.14    The scope of this recommendation is to provide benefits that can be achieved in the short term, by delivering improvements to posted speed limit, road markings and signage.

5.15    Longer term road safety improvement such as guardrails and seal widenings are also planned along Dyers Pass Road within the next two years and are included within the Long Term Plan.

5.16    If approved it is planned to install road markings and speed limit changes before the longer term improvements, as likely to have an immediate impact.

Road Environment and Traffic Data.

5.17    Dyers Pass Road connects Banks Peninsula to the city and provides access to the Port Hills. Traffic volumes are approximately 3,000 vehicles per day during the week and the route is popular with cyclists, with approximately 135 cyclists in each lane per day recorded on a weekend.

5.18    Dyers Pass Road is classified as a minor arterial from Colombo Street to Governors Bay Road. The portion of Dyers Pass from approximately 400 metres south of Hackthorne Road to Governors Bay Road is rural in nature with a posted speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour on the city side and 100 kilometres per hour on the Governors Bay side except a portion of approximately 350m that is 50 kilometres per hour immediately prior to Governors Bay Road.

5.19    Dyers Pass Road is a windy narrow route cut into the existing hillside. The route provides for one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a white dashed centre line marking. Lane widths range from 2.5m to 3m wide.

5.20    Dyers Pass Road has an open drain between the edge of seal and the hillside cut, and sections of W section guardrails protecting vehicles from rolling down steep banks on the opposite side of the road.

5.21    Speed counts have been completed at locations shown on Attachment D. The average speed is 63km/h, the distribution of speeds is shown on Attachment E.

5.22    Further detailed analysis of traffic data is included within Attachment G - responses to submitters.

Accident Record

5.23    The NZTA accident data base reports 178 accidents on Dyers Pass Road from Sign of the Takahe to Governors Bay from 2007-2016.

5.24    There were 76 accidents resulting in 104 injuries over the analysis period. Of these, 14 were serious injuries, 89 had minor injuries and one fatality. The below trends were noted:

·    Vehicles losing control while cornering accounted for 75% of reported accidents

·    Head on, vehicles overtaking and changing lanes accounted for 20% of reported accidents

·    Inappropriate speed entering a curve accounted for 37% of accidents reported

·    Fourteen death or serious injury accidents recorded

·    Head on, vehicles overtaking and changing lanes accounted for approximately 30% of reported death or serious injury accidents

·    Vehicles losing control while cornering accounted for 50% of reported death or serious injury accidents

·    Over 50% of accidents occurred at night in the dark

·    72% of accidents were reported dry road conditions. The balance of accidents occurred in wet or icy conditions

Attachment F illustrates these trends.

Travel Times

5.25    The NZTA speed management guide provides travel time data collected from Tom Tom GPS navigational devices and reports an average speed of 45-49 kilometres per hour to travel Dyers Pass Road. Measured travel time data measured by Council staff during peak times recorded an average speed of 54 kilometres per hour to travel the route. Further details on collected travel time data is included in response to submitters in Attachment G.

5.26    Council staff have recorded route travel times in both directions on Dyers Pass Road from the existing 50 kilometres per hour speed change points at Governors Bay and near Hackthorne Road.

·    Typically a weekday commuter trip anytime between 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm, takes approximately on average 6 minutes and 39 seconds.

·    A trip where a driver travelled at no more than 40 kilometres per hour takes approximately 9 minutes and 6 seconds.

·    A trip where a driver travelled at no more than 60 kilometres per hour takes approximately 7 minutes and 40 seconds

5.27    If a typical commute trip is constrained by a vehicle in front travelling at 40 kilometres per hour the entire journey, the result is approximately 2.5 minutes extra travel time. The difference between a typical commute trip and driving no more than 60km/h is about 1 minute.

5.28    The increase in travel time is conservative as it is unlikely that faster vehicle will be constrained along the entire route.

NZTA Speed Management Guide

5.29    The NZTA Speed Management Guide was published in November 2016 and has been followed up by a revision of, Land Transport Rule (The Rule): Setting of Speed Limits 2003. The revised Land Transport Rule: has been active since 21 September 2017.

5.30    The guide is an integral part of the Safer Journeys Safer Speeds Programme. The overall goal of the safer speeds programme, which sets the direction for speed management in New Zealand, in line with the governments Safer Journeys Road Safety Strategy 2010-2020 is to:

Reduce death and serious injuries, and support economic productivity through travel speeds that are safe and appropriate for road function, design, safety and use.

5.31    The Speed Management Guide introduces a modern approach to speed management in New Zealand roads. The 2017 Rule formalises the approach to speed management in the Guide. In particular the Rule: -

·    Requires RCAs to set speed limits that are, in the RCAs view, safe and appropriate; and

·    Encourages a consistent approach to speed management throughout New Zealand; and

·    Replaces the methodology of the 2003 Rule with assessment criteria and outcome statements based on the approach in the Guide.

5.32    The guide identifies Dyers Pass Road as high benefit site for speed management and a first priority intervention where there is the greatest potential to reduce death and serious injuries.

5.33    First priority interventions streets provide the greatest potential to reduce death and serious injuries and improve economic productivity, particularly in the short term. In both rural and urban environments this is likely to mean a focus on roads that have a higher collective accident risk and/or higher personal accident risk.


 

6.   Option 1 – No passing Lines and 60km/h Speed Limit (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Change speed limit from 70 kilometres per hour and 100 kilometres per hour to a consistent safe appropriate speed of 60 kilometres per hour as shown on Attachment A (preferred option) and install no passing lines.

Significance

6.2       The level of significance of this option is low 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       In accordance with the New Zealand Land Transport rule section 2.5 initial engagement was carried out with the New Zealand Transport Association and Police prior to formal consultation, both provided their support.

6.5       Consultation leaflets were hand delivered to approximately 670 residents in both Cashmere near the Sign of the Takahe, and Governors Bay. Leaflets were also delivered to 198 absentee property owners and 30 copies to libraries and service centres.

6.6       In accordance with the New Zealand Land Transport rule section 2.5 the New Zealand Automobile Association, Spokes, Environment Canterbury and the Road Transport Forum New Zealand were notified as part of the formal consultation.

6.7       An email was sent to 137 stakeholders with a link to the consultation website. These included Cass Bay, Charteris Bay, Church Bay, Corsair Bay, Diamond Harbour, Governors Bay, Purau, Lyttelton and Cashmere community and resident associations.

6.8       A Newsline story and  Facebook post were written and posted on 18 November 2017.

6.9       Consultation was carried out from 21 November 2017 to 18 December 2017. During this time 538 submissions were received.

6.10    Submitter preferences;

60km/h speed limit

Double yellow lines

Generally support

293 (55%)

267 (50.5%)

Do not support

163 (30.5%)

171 (32.2%)

Have some concerns

77 (14.5%)

91 (17.3%)

Total

533

529

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.11    Key themes raised in the comments are as follows;

Theme

Mentions

% of total

Cyclists are the main issue

65

15%

Can cyclists pass on double yellow lines

50

11%

Boy racers are the main issue

50

11%

Driver behaviour is the main issue

42

10%

Passing bays need to be added

35

8%

travel time increasing

35

8%

Need to add signage

34

8%

Can an uphill cycle lane be added?

29

7%

Can the road be widened

18

4%

Can the double yellow lines be limited to dangerous areas

17

4%

How will it be enforced?

29

7%

Road maintenance would have a large impact on safety

14

3%

Retain existing change point at Northern end

14

3%

Issues at Summit Road intersection

6

1%

slow vehicles cause most of the issues

4

1%

 

442

For responses to key issues raised refer Attachment G

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.13    Cost of Implementation – Approximately $100,000 to remove existing road markings, install new road markings, raised reflective pavement markers and signs.

6.14    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract.

6.15    Funding source – Traffic Operations - Black Spot Remedial Works.

Legal Implications

6.16    Speed limits must be set in accordance with Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017 and subsequent amendments. 

6.17    Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Speed Limits Bylaw 2010 provides Council with the authority to set speed limits by resolution.

6.18    The Council has not delegated its authority to set speed limits. 

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

Risks and Mitigations   

6.20    Vehicles being stuck behind slow motor vehicles and not being legally permitted to pass, creating driver frustration.

6.21    Dyers Pass Road is relatively short and takes no more than 10 minutes to travel. Due to this short length, it is unlikely to create frustration to the point of impaired decision making. The difference between typical commute times and driving at 40km/h the entire route is about 2.5minutes. The extra travel time is low compared to the risk of overtaking on a road that provides little opportunity to do so.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - dependent on endorsement and approval by both the Spreydon Cashmere and Banks Peninsula Community Boards and approval by the Council to legalise the speed limit.

6.23    Implementation timeframe – Approximately 20 working days to install no passing lines following board approval, note that road marking delivery is weather dependent.

6.24    Approximately 20 working days to install speed limit change signage following Council approval.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Aims to lower speeds further with a high potential to reduce death and serious injury accidents

·   Provide clarity and confirmation that it is not safe to overtake a motor vehicle

·   Low cost solution to provide reduction in accidents

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Creates minor delay to small portion of daily commuters

·   Vehicles being stuck behind slow motor vehicles and not being legally permitted to pass

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do Nothing

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low and 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 to section 6.5 to 6.11

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – it does not improve road safety and reduce the number of reported crashes on the network.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - $0

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

7.8       Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable

Risks and Mitigations    

7.10    The current high accident risk remains.

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:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the high crash risk on Dyers Pass Road and will not help Council meet its goal of an annual 5% reduction in deaths and serious injuries.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Preferred Option

 

b 

Road Safety Risk Maps

 

c 

Accident Distribution

 

d 

Speed Counts and Traffic Volume

 

e 

Speed Distribution

 

f 

Accident Trends

 

g 

Response to Submitters

 

 

 

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

Dane Moir - Engagement Delivery Assistant

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Senior Traffic Engineer

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

16.    Mayor's Monthly Report

Reference:

18/262698

Presenter(s):

The Mayor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for the Mayor to report on external activities she undertakes in her city and community leadership role; and to report on outcomes and key decisions of the external bodies she attends on behalf of the Council.

Origin

This report is compiled by the Mayor’s office.

2.   Mayors Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the information in this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Mayor's Report December 2017

162

b

Mayor's Report January - March 2018

164

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

17.    Chief Executive's Report

Reference:

18/262709

Presenter(s):

Karleen Edwards, Chief Executive

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       This Chief Executive’s Report provides a summary of the Council’s organisational performance for March 2018.

1.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council:

1.         Receive the report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

CE's report - March 2018

170

 

 

Signatories

Author

Karleen Edwards - Chief Executive

  


Council

05 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

05 April 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 7 March 2018

 

18.    Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

Reference:

18/297789

Presenter(s):

Gavin Thomas, Team Leader Policy

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee considered the staff report on the Local Alcohol Policy – Options for Consideration.

Councillor Gough declared an interest in this item and took no part in the discussion and voting on the matter.

The Committee agreed that the initial membership of the working group is a matter for the Council to decide, so did not nominate any members under clause 3. of the recommendations.

Councillor East, Regulatory Performance Committee Chairman, and Councillor Chen voted against the Committee’s recommendation.

 

 

2.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Requests staff to begin work to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible, noting that:

a.         The process to prepare a policy should enable a provisional Local Alcohol Policy to be notified by 30 August 2019 (should the Council proceed to that point), if started immediately.

b.         The process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy will follow that proposed in this report (refer section 9).

2.         Appoints a working group of elected members to work with staff to;

a.         Identify information relevant to the draft policy and what provisions that policy should include

b.         Make recommendations to the Council on matters relevant to policy analysis and preparation

c.         Work with staff to identify policy options

d.         Establish and maintain effective working relationships with statutory consultees and key stakeholders

3.         Appoints [insert name here] as the Chairperson and [insert names here] as the members of the working group.

4.         Requests the working group to draft its Terms of Reference and authorises the Regulatory Performance Committee to:

a.         Approve the final terms of reference and, if necessary, subsequent amendments

b.         Approve any subsequent changes to the membership of the working group.   

 

 

Secretarial Note:  At its meeting on 22 March 2018 the Council heard deputations on this report from:

·    Dr Alistair Humphrey, Canterbury Medical Officer of Health

·    Canterbury Branch, Hospitality NZ, Peter Morrison and Amy McLellan-Minty

·    New Zealand Police, Inspector Richard Bruce

·      Wayne Hawker

·      Marty Fuller

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

181

 

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

Local Alcohol Policy - Options for Consideration

Reference:

18/48743

Contact:

Gavin Thomas

Gavin.thomas@ccc.govt.nz

941 8834

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to consider the options for the development of a Local Alcohol Policy.

Origin of Report

1.2       In November 2017 the Council considered whether it should review its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to address the issues raised by the High Court decision on a judicial review or to discontinue its Local Alcohol Policy process.

1.3       The Council decided to discontinue the Local Alcohol Policy process and requested staff report back on options for preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy. Council resolution CNCL/2017/00001 to instruct staff to prepare options as soon as practical for preparing a new draft alcohol policy along with a proposed timeline.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined having regard to the nature of the decision. Significance and community engagement matters would be considered at a future date should the Council decide to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy. 

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

2.1.3   There has been significant community engagement on the content matters potentially covered by a draft Local Alcohol Policy (although not in recent years, explicit community engagement on whether to have a Local Alcohol Policy).

 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Requests staff to begin work to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible, noting that:

a.         The process to prepare a policy should enable a provisional Local Alcohol Policy to be notified by 30 August 2019 (should the Council proceed to that point), if started immediately.

b.         The process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy will follow that proposed in this report (refer section 9).

2.         Appoints a working group of elected members to work with staff to;

a.         Identify information relevant to the draft policy and what provisions that policy should include

b.         Make recommendations to the Regulatory Performance Committee on matters relevant to policy analysis and preparation

c.         Work with staff to identify policy options

d.         Establish and maintain effective working relationships with statutory consultees and key stakeholders

3.         Appoints [insert name here] as the Chairperson and [insert names here] as the members of the working group.

4.         Requests the working group to draft its Terms of Reference and authorises the Regulatory Performance Committee to:

a.         Approve the final terms of reference and, if necessary, subsequent amendments

b.         Approve any subsequent changes to the membership of the working group.  

 

3.   Key Points

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

3.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.1 Advice is provided to Council on high priority policy and planning issues that affect the City

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·    Option 1 – Start the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible (preferred option).

·    Option 2 – Defer any decision on whether to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy until after the triennial elections in 2019.

·    Option 3 – Do not have a Local Alcohol Policy.

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

3.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·    Information and data needed to inform a policy is still largely current and relevant.

·    Enables the Council to re-engage with the community on matters associated with alcohol and a local alcohol policy while they remain fresh in the minds of stakeholders and residents.

·    Will enable the Council to consider Policy issues and option provisions in light of changes in the city since the original decisions were made.

·    Puts in place a regulatory framework that enables alcohol licensing decisions to be made that take account of local issues and preferences and that seek to minimise alcohol-related harm.

·    A Local Alcohol Policy will be in place earlier than under the other options.

·    A Policy will provide a degree of certainty for both businesses and the wider community as to any restrictions on location and/ or maximum trading hours for different types and locations of licensed premises.

·    This decision is easily reversed – the Council can decide to discontinue the process at any time.

3.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The Council will need to apply funding and resources to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

·    This option is unlikely to provide an opportunity for the 2019 incoming Council to have significant input to the Policy.

·    Resolving appeals on a new LAP could be a lengthy (and costly) process.

 

4.   Context/Background

Legislative context

4.1       The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (the Act) enables territorial authorities to have a local alcohol policy relating to the sale, supply or consumption of alcohol within its district (section 75).

4.2       There is no requirement for a territorial authority to have a local alcohol policy. In the absence of a policy the District Licensing Committee use the default licensing provisions of the Act as the basis of its licensing decisions.

4.3       Section 77 of the Act details what may be included in a local alcohol policy. These are:

(a)  location of licensed premises by reference to broad areas;

(b)  location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to premises of a particular kind or kinds;

(c)   location of licensed premises by reference to proximity to facilities of a particular kind or kinds;

(d)  whether further licences (or licences of a particular kind or kinds) should be issued for premises in the district concerned, or any stated part of the district;

(e)  maximum trading hours;

(f)   the issue of licences, or licences of a particular kind or kinds, subject to discretionary conditions;

(g)  one-way door restrictions.

A local alcohol policy must not include policies on any matter not relating to licensing.

4.4       The Council must not produce a draft Policy without having consulted the Police, licensing inspectors, and Medical Officers of Health. A draft Policy must be consulted on using the special consultative procedure prescribed in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

4.5       Following consideration of submissions received on the draft policy and any resulting changes being made, the Council would adopt the policy as a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy and then notify it as such. In notifying the Policy the Council gives notice of:

(a)  the provisional policy; and

(b)  rights of appeal against it; and

(c)   the ground on which an appeal may be made.

4.6       The only ground on which an element of the provisional policy can be appealed against is that it is unreasonable in light of the objectives of the Act. This introduces an implicit limitation on the content of a local alcohol policy and on the reasons for any provision contained in a local alcohol policy – it must be directed to minimising harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol.   

4.7       The object of the Act is that—

(a)  the sale, supply, and consumption of alcohol should be undertaken safely and responsibly; and

(b)  the harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol should be minimised.

4.8       The Act defines harm caused by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol includes—

(a)  any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by the excessive or inappropriate consumption of alcohol; and

(b)  any harm to society generally or the community, directly or indirectly caused, or directly or indirectly contributed to, by any crime, damage, death, disease, disorderly behaviour, illness, or injury of a kind described in paragraph (a).

4.9       A council may at any time before the adoption of a local alcohol policy discontinue its development.

 

Previous Local Alcohol Policy process

4.10    This Council has, for many years, advocated for greater community involvement in alcohol licensing decisions. In 2009 the Council made submissions on the Law Commission discussion paper Alcohol in our Lives supporting greater community input in licensing decisions. The Council’s submission on the draft Alcohol Reform Bill in 2009 again highlighted support for increased community involvement in alcohol licensing decisions.

4.11    Before the Act became law the Council stated it would prepare a Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible. Following the passing of the Act, the Council commenced work on its draft Local Alcohol Policy, including undertaking an extensive survey of community attitudes to alcohol and a literature review of policy interventions available at that time. 

4.12    In 2013 the Council approved a draft Local Alcohol Policy and consulted on its provisions, with 4,060 submissions being received, representing a wide range of views, from sector groups, local communities and individuals. The Committee made a number changes to the Policy which was completed shortly before the triennial elections in October 2013. The Council deferred notification of the provisional Policy until the new Council was in place. The incoming Council then decided to further defer notification until the first appeals on other councils’ local alcohol policies had been decided.

4.13    In 2015 the Council notified its provisional Local Alcohol Policy triggering the appeals process to begin. Nineteen appeals were lodged and a number of parties notified the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) of their interest in the proceedings. Through mediation and negotiation with appellants and interested parties, the Council reached agreement with seventeen of the nineteen appellants.

4.14    The Council publicly notified an amended provisional Local Alcohol Policy in October 2016. Two appeals and six interested party notices were lodged with ARLA. In December 2016 Hospitality NZ filed judicial review proceedings on the Council’s 29 September 2016 reconsideration decision as it related to Victoria Street. In June 2017 the High Court issued its decision on the judicial review proceedings. The Court found against the Council and the two provisional LAP appeals were stayed.

4.15    In November 2017 the Council considered whether it should review its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to address the issues raised by the High Court and then resubmit its provisional Local Alcohol Policy to ARLA or to discontinue the Policy development process at that point. The Council decided to discontinue the Policy process and to have staff report back in early 2018 on options on preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

 

National context

4.16    Many territorial local authorities in New Zealand have a local alcohol policy in place or are undertaking the process to prepare a policy. Christchurch’s neighbouring councils of Waimakariri and Selwyn both have local alcohol policies. Other councils in Canterbury without a local alcohol policy or not in the process of preparing one are Waitaki, Mackenzie and Kaikoura District Councils.

4.17    Of the major metropolitan councils, Christchurch, Wellington, Napier, Hastings, Nelson and Dunedin do not have a local alcohol policy. Napier, Hastings and Nelson all are parties to regional alcohol strategies aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm.  Auckland Council’s policy is not yet in force as it is still subject to appeals.

5.   Strategic Linkages

Strategic and policy objectives related to minimising harm from alcohol

5.1       The Council’s proposed strategic framework includes draft community outcomes that are health and safety related and which are likely to be impacted by alcohol-related harm. These are:

Community outcomes

Strong communities

·    Safe and healthy communities

Liveable city

·    Vibrant and thriving central city, suburban and rural centres

5.2       The Council has community safety focussed strategies and plans with direct links to alcohol and alcohol-related issues. These are:

Safer Christchurch Strategy

·    Identifies “reducing harm caused by alcohol use” as one of its cross-cutting themes to be considered within each of the priority areas of the strategy

·    Identifies alcohol as one of the significant contributing factors to many crimes

·    Strategy Objective - Support initiatives targeting at minimising alcohol-related harm, ensuring an integrated approach with injury and crime prevention

Alcohol-related harm at public events policy

·    Policy applies requires outdoor events provided by the Council, or on land controlled by the Council, or funded by the Council, where alcohol will be sold to plan for ways to reduce alcohol harm and care for people affected by alcohol.

5.3       The Council has an Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places bylaw which enables the Council to establish alcohol ban areas where alcohol is a cause of public disorder issues best resolved by using the alcohol ban tool. The purpose of alcohol restrictions or bans is to reduce alcohol-related harm, damage, disorder and crime, and to improve community safety in public spaces such as footpaths, streets, parks, reserves, riverbanks, and beaches.

5.4       The Christchurch District Plan has objectives and rules to preserve the amenity of residential areas from, amongst other things, any significant negative effects from inconsistent land use including the siting of premises selling alcohol. These are:

·    3.3.1 Enabling recovery and facilitating the future enhancement of the district

·    3.3.7 Urban growth, form and design

·    3.3.14  Incompatible activities

5.5       District Plan objective 3.3.1 above is the only objective that specifically seeks to meet[s] the community’s immediate and longer term needs …and social and cultural wellbeing

5.6       The implicit requirement for a local alcohol policy to address only matters related to harm minimisation mean these strategic linkages are likely to be important considerations in any decision to have a local alcohol policy or not, and if a policy is developed, what policy settings are included.

6.   Community and stakeholder views

Community survey

6.1       In 2012 the Council commissioned independent research company Research First to survey residents on their views to a range of alcohol licensing issues. The report on the findings of the survey was provided to the Council in March 2013. Responses from 1,700 residents were analysed with the sample size providing a maximum margin of error of +/- 2.4 per cent. Key findings of the survey (at a headline level) were:

·    Little support for more liberal alcohol licensing

·    Little change in attitudes or behaviour to alcohol due to the earthquakes

6.2       Survey participants were asked to rate their level of agreement to a series of statements regarding the availability of alcohol. The statements with the highest levels of agreement were that:

·    Anti-social behaviour mostly involves people who have been drinking (92%);

·    Excessive drinking leads to people being unable to carry out everyday tasks such as going to work (90%);

·    People don't feel safe in public places when there are people around who have been drinking (88%); and

·    Intimidating behaviour, assaults and violence usually involve people who have been drinking (87%).

The statements that people disagreed with most commonly were:

·    People should be able to buy alcohol readily at most hours (63% disagree, 28% agree); and

·    People should be able to buy alcohol readily throughout the city (51% disagree, 39% agree).

6.3       While these responses weren’t to a direct question about whether or not the Council should have a local alcohol policy they did show majority support on most questions for a regulatory approach consistent with a policy that is more restrictive than the default licensing provisions of the Act. 

Draft local alcohol policy submissions

6.4       In 2013 the Council undertook community engagement on its draft Local Alcohol Policy. The Council received 4,060 submissions; 1,053 through the Council’s Have Your Say portal; 1,929 from Hospitality New Zealand’s Facebook survey and 1,078 from the ChCh Late Facebook petition, 161 from various government and community groups and organisations, with the remainder from individuals including licensees, hospitality staff and providers of live entertainment, health and social service professionals and staff, residents and representatives of local neighbourhoods.

6.5       As with the survey discussed above, submissions received didn’t respond to a direct question about whether or not the Council should have a local alcohol policy but many did indicate support for a regulatory approach consistent with a policy that is more restrictive than the default licensing provisions of the Act. 

New Zealand Police

6.6       Local police have been supportive of the Council having a local alcohol policy from the outset of the previous policy development process. Police representatives were closely involved in the community discussions regarding the previous local alcohol policy and gave evidence at the ARLA hearings considering objections to the provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

6.7       Recent contact with a Police representative found they remain firmly of the view that a local alcohol policy is needed. They say that while there are default provisions in the Act these do not necessarily reflect the needs or wishes of the Christchurch City community nor do they necessarily minimise alcohol related harm in the Christchurch context.  The local alcohol policy is the vehicle by which the local community can impose provisions required to minimise alcohol related harm in Christchurch.

6.8       The Police favour an immediate start to policy development, saying any delay to a local alcohol policy will result in additional unnecessary victimisation due to alcohol related offending and harm.

Medical Officer of Health 

6.9       The Medical Officer of Health has been a strong and consistent advocate for the Council having a local alcohol policy. We did not receive a response from Doctor Humphrey regarding any preference for approach regarding a local alcohol policy but assume his view remains the same and he would support an immediate start on policy development.

Hospitality New Zealand

6.10    Hospitality NZ believes the Council should either wait for the new triennium (2019) to begin preparing a draft Local Alcohol Policy or rely only on the default provisions of the Act (and not have a Policy). They believe the conditions the District Licensing Committee can place on any licensed premises are sufficient to address matters related to alcohol-related harm.

6.11    Hospitality NZ states that the license application appeals process provides communities with sufficient means to have local issues considered as part of license applications.

6.12    Hospitality NZ note the costs incurred by the Council in preparing its previous provisional Local Alcohol Policy and the likelihood of any future policy being appealed means preparing a new policy is not fiscally responsible.

Licensing inspectors

6.13    Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, the licensing inspectors are required to “act independently when exercising and performing their functions, duties, and powers”.  Operationally, it is understood that the inspectors report that they would highly value the direction that could be given in any policy. The inspectors acknowledge the importance a LAP gives the community as an avenue for them to have input in licensing matters and that this was a fundamental part of the changes in the Act. The inspectors will work with whatever regulatory framework is decided by the Council and the community and that is deemed reasonable by ARLA. The inspectors support any decision that will give certainty and clarity to the licensing environment.

6.14    The Council’s licensing inspectors have provided operational observations on the current licensing environment that may be of interest to the Council in its consideration on this report.

·    The Christchurch approach to 3am closing was previously supported through:

The previous Christchurch Alcohol Policy 2004. This ceased to have effect when the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act came into force.

The Central City Alcohol Accord – which had agreement from central city licensees to a one-way door policy and 3:00am closing. This ceased to operate following the earthquakes.

The previous Provisional Local Alcohol Policy.

·    Advice to parties on licensing matters:

The licensing inspectors provide advice to applicants for new licenses before they submit their application.

The general policy direction the Council was proposing through its previous local alcohol policy was well understood by licensees through the information and advice provided by inspectors.

Current policy gap - with no clear policy direction currently signalled, providing appropriate and practical day to day operational advice is problematic for the inspectors. A clear policy direction would enable better advice to be provided. 

·    There have been some practical gains since the implementation of the Act, despite the absence of a local alcohol policy:

Some voluntary reductions of licensed hours with some types of license, partly due to the costs of license application and annual fees under the risk based fees regime.

Various voluntary precinct area specific on-licence alcohol accords developing as main late night hospitality areas rebuild. This fosters and supports cooperation and consistency in management of late-night hospitality areas.

Communities, in various localities, have exercised their ability to object to alcohol licence applications, on licenced hours and amenity and good order criteria, where concerns relate to a particular site and operation. 

·    Over the past year there has been a noticeable increase in community objections to license applications based on non-application considerations under the Act and more closely aligned to matters more appropriately dealt with through a local alcohol policy:

An example is concerns relating to density of licensed premises and the number of types of licences in an area or across the whole city, such as off-licence bottle stores and on-licence hours to 3am near residential areas.

Consultation on a local alcohol policy is the only avenue for a community to voice these types of density and threshold concerns. Having this opportunity may reduce the incidence of objections to license applications on matters that can only be dealt with through a local alcohol policy.

7.   Council initiatives to minimise harm from alcohol

7.1       The Council has entered into a number of regulatory and community initiatives aimed at reducing alcohol-related harm. These are both regulatory and non-regulatory with most involving collaboration with other agencies.

Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw

·    The bylaw enables the Council to establish alcohol ban areas within the city where the drinking of alcohol or the carrying of an open alcohol container in a public place (including in a car) is prohibited.

A breach of the bylaw is an offence that may result in arrest, prosecution and/or a fine. The bylaw is enforced by NZ Police, using special powers under the Local Government Act.

There are 13 ban areas in place with five in force 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and the remainder covering either specific times of day or specific days of the year.

Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

·    Christchurch Police, Christchurch City Council and the Canterbury District Health Board have developed the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan (CAAP).  The Plan provides a collective vision, strategies and actions aimed at achieving a sustained reduction in alcohol-related harm across Christchurch.

The CAAP is informed by New Zealand and international evidence; local data; and what our stakeholders and communities are saying about alcohol-related harm and how best to reduce it. It has been shaped by a shared vision, values and desired outcomes developed in consultation with the community.

The CAAP programme of action is extensive and builds on and complements existing activities within the regulated environment and identifies wider areas in the non-regulated environment where agencies can gain efficiencies and effectiveness through collaborative planning and service delivery.

Alcohol Licensing in the Community

·    The Council has produced an information brochure and templates to assist communities to object to the granting of alcohol licenses in their communities or to communicate concerns or issues with existing premises.  Council community development staff provide guidance and support to ensure communities can put forward their views through the licensing process. There is also extensive information and advice provided on how to navigate the licensing processes overseen by the District Licensing Committee. https://www.ccc.govt.nz/consents-and-licences/business-licences-and-consents/alcohol/objecting-to-a-grant-for-a-licence/

Alcohol-related harm at public events policy

·    Policy requires outdoor events provided by the Council, or on land controlled by the Council, or funded by the Council, where alcohol will be sold to plan for and implement ways to reduce alcohol harm and care for people affected by alcohol at the event.

7.2       The effect these initiatives are having, or are expected to have, on reducing alcohol-related harm should be considered by the Council in any decision on whether to have a local alcohol policy or not. The Council may consider the effects these initiatives are having reduces the need for a local alcohol policy, or alternatively may believe a local alcohol policy is needed to support and/ or add value to the initiatives outlined above.

 

8.   Policy preparation process

8.1       This report does not attempt to provide analysis of the specific issues associated with alcohol-related harm that would be included in the issues and options assessment of policy development.

8.2       Community views and those of statutory consultees and Hospitality NZ are included for the elected member’s information rather than to pre-empt any thinking around alcohol-related harm issues and/ or policy approaches. If the Council decides to proceed with preparation of a local alcohol policy all community engagement requirements would be fulfilled as part of that process.

8.3       Preparation of a local alcohol policy would include fresh alcohol-related harm statistics being sought and analysed where applicable and a review of relevant literature undertaken.

8.4       A fresh community survey would be commissioned to obtain community views on key matters associated with alcohol licensing, alcohol-related harm and possible policy approaches. This would closely follow the methodology used for the survey undertaken in 2012.

 

9.   Option 1 - Prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy as soon as possible. (preferred)

Option Description

9.1       Undertake work required to prepare a Local Alcohol Policy.

9.2       Proposed timeline for preparing a Local Alcohol Policy

 

Key Steps

Complete by:

1

Briefing for elected member working party

April 2018

 

Gather required information/data.

·   Literature review

·   Community survey

·   Stakeholder forum(s)

·   Consult with statutory consultees (Police, Medical Officer of Health and Licensing Inspectors)

May 2018

2

Analysis - define policy problem/issue and scope of project. Identify possible policy responses

End of June 2018

3

Seek Community Board feedback on draft proposals

End of August

4

Committee and Council workshops

End of September

5

Prepare draft LAP for approval of Council

End of October

6

Adopt/ notify draft LAP and receive submissions

November/ December 2018

7

Hearing of submissions including deliberations on provisional LAP

February 2019

8

Council decision on provisional LAP

April 2019

9

Notification to allow commencement of appeals process

May 2019

10

Appeals lodged with ARLA

June 2019

11

Appeals process and adoption of LAP

Process to resolve appeals commences January 2019 including hearing and consideration of appeals by ARLA. Following resolution of appeals – Council can adopt LAP. LAP brought into force. Changes to maximum trading hours apply a minimum of 3 months after public notice of adoption.

June – September 2019

This depends on hearings, appeals and other possible actions

 

Significance

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

9.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are limited to whatever the Council considers appropriate at this time. A special consultation procedure would be undertaken if the Council adopts a draft Local Alcohol Policy for consultation purposes.

9.5       In addition to requirements related to the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy the Council must engage with the statutory consultees (NZ Police, Medical Officer of Health, licensing inspectors) as part of the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.6       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

9.7       This report has summarised community views and preferences captured through the previous draft local alcohol policy process and has specifically included fresh views and preferences from statutory consultees and key affected stakeholders. Their views are included in the narrative of this report. As described in 9.4 above, further consultation will be undertaken if the Council decides to prepare a draft local alcohol policy.

9.8       The NZ Police and Medical Officer of Health (both statutory consultees) support the Council preparing a local alcohol policy as soon as possible. Hospitality NZ believes the Council should not prepare a local alcohol policy at this time.

9.9       Community engagement on the previous draft Local Alcohol Policy found support for the Council having a policy from community boards and some caveated support from residents surveyed (where a majority wanted the Council to have more restrictive licensing policies than those provided by the Act).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.11    Cost of Implementation – to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy, undertake a special consultation procedure, analyse submissions and make recommendations to the Council is estimated to cost $150,000 (excluding legal costs associated with any appeals or subsequent legal actions initiated).

9.12    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable at this stage.

9.13    Funding source – existing budgets – largely from Strategic Policy team and Legal Services Unit.

Legal Implications

9.14    If the Council adopts this option it will need to comply with the statutory requirements set out in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act relevant to the content of a Local Alcohol Policy and the process for drafting and adopting a provisional local alcohol policy.

Risks and Mitigations  

9.15    There is a risk that some stakeholders or community members who want to be involved in the process to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy are unable to engage in the process due to it being fast-tracked.  This may result in these stakeholders and residents feeling unfairly shut out of the process.

9.15.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) are implemented will be Low/ Medium

9.15.2 Planned treatment(s) include

·    Engage as broadly as practicable within the confines the timeline to enable stakeholders and residents to have their views considered as part of the process.

·    Ensure the policy development process is well documented on the CCC website and that it is clear there are opportunities to be involved.

·    Maintain open channels of communication with community boards, stakeholders and residents to promote engagement opportunities.

Implementation

9.16    Implementation dependencies - information required from the statutory consultees – Police statistics, Canterbury District Health Board statistics and Council alcohol licensing data. In the past relevant data has sometimes been difficult to obtain within required timelines.

9.17    Implementation timeframe – complete a draft Local Alcohol Policy in time for it to be notified as a Provisional Local Alcohol Policy by end of August 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Information and data needed to inform a policy is still largely current and relevant.

·   Enables the Council to re-engage with the community on matters associated with alcohol and a local alcohol policy while they remain fresh in the minds of stakeholders and residents.

·   Will enable the Council to consider Policy issues and options provisions in light of changes in the city since the original decisions were made.

·   Puts in place a regulatory framework that enables alcohol licensing decisions to be made that take account of local issues and preferences and that seek to minimise alcohol-related harm.

·   A Local Alcohol Policy will be in place earlier than under the other options.

·   A Policy will provide a degree of certainty for both businesses and the wider community as to any restrictions on location and/ or maximum trading hours for different types and locations of licensed premises.

·   This decision can be reversed – the Council can decide to discontinue the process at any time.

9.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council will need to apply funding and resources to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy.

·   This option is unlikely to provide an opportunity for the 2019 incoming Council to have significant input to the Policy.

·   Resolving appeals on a new LAP could be a lengthy (and costly) process.

10. Option 2 – Defer any decision on whether to prepare a Local Alcohol Policy until 2019/20

Option Description

10.1    Defer any decision on whether to prepare a draft Local Alcohol Policy until after the triennial elections in 2019.

10.2    This option could include direction from the Council to staff to continue with some information gathering and other low cost policy preparation functions. This would enable policy preparation to proceed more quickly if there was a decision to prepare a local alcohol policy in late 2019 (after the October 2019 elections).

Significance

10.3    The level of significance of this option is assessed as being medium, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

10.4    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable at this time.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.6    This report has summarised community views and preferences captured through the previous draft local alcohol policy process and has specifically included fresh views and preferences from statutory consultees and key affected stakeholders. Their views are included in the narrative of this report. As described in 9.4 above, further consultation will be undertaken if the Council decides to prepare a draft local alcohol policy.

10.7    The NZ Police and Medical Officer of Health support the Council preparing a local alcohol policy as soon as possible. Hospitality NZ believes the Council should not prepare a local alcohol policy at this time.

10.8    Community engagement on the previous draft Local Alcohol Policy found support for the Council having a policy from community boards and implicit support from residents surveyed (where a majority wanted the Council to have more restrictive licensing policies than those provided by the Act).

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

10.9    This option is not inconsistent with Council’s policies and plans but does not immediately support achievement of some Council policies and plans.

Financial Implications

10.10  Cost of Implementation – no budget required at this time.

10.11  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable.

10.12  Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

10.13  There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision at this time.

10.14  This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

10.15  There is a risk that opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm in Christchurch won’t be realised.  This may result in alcohol-related harm in Christchurch not being minimised.

10.15.1  Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be medium/ low.

10.15.2  Planned and current treatment(s) include the various other initiatives the Council is delivering or plans to deliver to reduce alcohol-related harm that are detailed in section 7 of this report.

Implementation

10.16  Implementation dependencies - not applicable at this time.

10.17  Implementation timeframe – not applicable at this time.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.18  The advantages of this option include:

·   The full process to develop a draft local alcohol policy and notify a provisional local alcohol policy can be undertaken by one Council over the 2019-22 triennium.

·   The ongoing development of the city, and particularly the hospitality sector in the central city, can be taken into account in policy decision-making.

·   No costs are incurred at this time.

10.19  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm that can be applied through the provisions of a local alcohol policy won’t be available to be used.

11. Option 3 – Do not have a local alcohol policy

Option Description

11.1    The Council could decide not to have a Policy and to rely instead on the default licensing provisions of the Act.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

11.3    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

11.4    As for options 1 and 2.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

11.5    This option is not inconsistent with Council’s Plans and Policies. The Council has community outcomes, policies and strategies that have explicit or implicit objectives to promote community health and wellbeing and to reduce alcohol-related harm. However, not having a local alcohol policy may not necessarily be inconsistent with these policies and strategies.

 

Financial Implications

11.6    Cost of Implementation – Nil.

11.7    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Nil.

11.8    Funding source – Not applicable.

Legal Implications

11.9    There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

11.10  This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit

Risks and Mitigations

11.1    There is a risk that opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm in Christchurch won’t be realised.  This may result in alcohol-related harm in Christchurch not being minimised.

11.1.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be medium/ low.

11.1.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include the various other initiatives the Council is delivering or plans to deliver to reduce alcohol-related harm that are detail in section 7 of this report.

Implementation

11.2    Implementation dependencies - not applicable.

11.3    Implementation timeframe – not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

11.4    The advantages of this option include:

·   No costs are incurred at this time.

11.5    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The opportunities to reduce alcohol-related harm that can be applied through the provisions of a local alcohol policy won’t be able to be used.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Gavin Thomas - Team Leader Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 

 

 


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

19.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Note

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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


Council

05 April 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

20

RFP responses and options

s7(2)(h), s7(2)(i), s7(2)(j)

Commercial Activities, Conduct Negotiations, Prevention of Improper Advantage

Seeking approval to enter into negotiations with vendor

30 June 2018