Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Thursday 26 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

 

 

20 April 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@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

26 April 2018

 

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.       Apologies................................................................................................................................... 6

2.       Declarations of Interest............................................................................................................ 6

3.       Public Participation.................................................................................................................. 6

3.1       Public Forum....................................................................................................................... 6

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 6

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

Council

5.       Council Minutes - 1 March 2018.............................................................................................. 7

6.       Council Minutes - 22 March 2018.......................................................................................... 17

7.       Council Minutes - 5 April 2018............................................................................................... 35

8.       Council Minutes - 12 April 2018............................................................................................. 47

Regulatory Performance Committee

9.       Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work - Quarterly Progress Report.................................................................................................................................................. 57

10.     Dog Registration and Associated Fees 2018 - 2019.............................................................. 69

11.     Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area................................................................ 83

12.     Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 11 April 2018.......................................... 103

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

13.     Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018....... 111

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

14.     Well Head Security Improvements...................................................................................... 119

15.     An Accessible City: Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Town Hall.............................. 231

16.     Hereford Street, Cambridge Terrace, Balfour Terrace & East Frame-Traffic Controls.... 253

17.     Update on Northwest Christchurch Drinking Water Standards NZ Upgrade Programme 291

18.     Southshore South New Brighton Temporary Floodplain Management Update............ 327

19.     Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 11 April 2018.......... 345

Insurance Committee

20.     Insurance Committee Minutes - 6 April 2018..................................................................... 367

STAFF REPORTS

21.     Draft submission on Government Policy Statement on Land Transport......................... 371

22.     Resolution to Exclude the Public......................................................................................... 373  

 

 

 


Council

26 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

26 April 2018

 

 

5.        Council Minutes - 1 March 2018

Reference:

18/282667

Presenter(s):

Christopher Turner-Bullock – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 1 March 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 1 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 1 March 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

6.        Council Minutes - 22 March 2018

Reference:

18/345803

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 22 March 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 22 March 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 22 March 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

26 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


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

7.        Council Minutes - 5 April 2018

Reference:

18/342672

Presenter(s):

Christopher Turner-Bullock, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 5 April 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 5 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 5 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Committee Advisor

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

8.        Council Minutes - 12 April 2018

Reference:

18/381405

Presenter(s):

Jo Daly – Council Secretary

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

For the Council to confirm the minutes from the Council meeting held 12 April 2018.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council confirm the Minutes from the Council meeting held 12 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Council - 12 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Jo Daly - Council Secretary

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

9.        Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work - Quarterly Progress Report

Reference:

18/356842

Presenter(s):

Amy Hart, Community Development Advisor
Jenny Hughey, Principal Advisor Policy

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee received advice from staff that the Council should approve the reporting change that future quarterly progress reports be provided to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee. 

 

Staff advised that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has recommended that the Committee appoint Alexandra Davids and Councillor Deon Swiggs to the Street Based Sex Work Collaborative Community Working Group.  Advice was provided that the Council should approve amendments to the Working Group’s membership.

 

The Committee made recommendations to the Council to address these points.

 

2.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Quarterly Progress Report – Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work.

2.         Refer future quarterly progress reports to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee (rather than the Regulatory Performance Committee).

3.         Appoints Alexandra Davids and Councillor Swiggs as the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representatives on the Street Based Sex Work Collaborative Community Working Group

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work - Quarterly Progress Report

2

 

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work - Quarterly Progress Report

Reference:

18/301700

Presenter(s):

Amy Hart, Community Development Advisor
Jenny Hughey, Principal Advisor Policy

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to be updated on the Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is provided to fulfil the Council’s resolution (CNCL/2017/00291) directing staff to bring quarterly progress reports to the Regulatory Performance Committee on the Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work Project.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance is medium because this project is likely to be of wide public interest.  It impacts on a small number of residents and businesses and a small geographical area, but is of high concern to those residents and businesses. This project will impact on street-based sex workers operating in the area. There are a number of non-governmental organisations with an interest, including the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, Youth and Cultural Development and the Salvation Army, all of whom run outreach services for street-based sex workers. The New Zealand Police also have an interest.

2.1.2   The community engagement outlined in this report reflects the assessment.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Regulatory Performance Committee:

1.         Receive the Quarterly Progress Report – Community Development Approach to Street-Based Sex Work.

2.         Refer future quarterly progress reports to the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee (rather than the Regulatory Performance Committee).

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Residents around Manchester Street north and south of Bealey Avenue are concerned with the impact of street-based sex workers, clients, minders and sightseers in their neighbourhoods. Concerns include late night noise, offensive and hazardous litter, intimidation, vandalism and trespassing.

4.2       In December 2017 the Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, established a Collaborative Working Group (CCWG) with residents, advocates of street-based sex workers and other key organisations and agencies to understand issues and jointly develop solutions.

4.3       The CCWG agreed that the outcomes it would like to achieve are that:

4.3.1   Residents and street-based sex workers experience a good quality of life;

4.3.2   Street-based sex workers operate in an area that is safe and welcoming.

4.4       Key actions undertaken, planned or being investigated to achieve these outcomes include:

4.4.1   Encouraging street-based sex workers to relocate;

4.4.2   Installing signage to alert people that CCTV cameras operate in the area;

4.4.3   Investigating traffic engineering options;

4.4.4   High Police presence to encourage workers and minders to behave in a neighbourly way;

4.4.5   Installing an additional rubbish bin to reduce litter;

4.4.6   Cleaning empty lots to deter anti-social behaviour;

4.4.7   Investigating signage to promote community safety;

4.4.8   Enhancing wraparound social services for workers.

 

5.   Context/Background

History of the issue

5.1       In the mid-1990s street-based sex workers moved from Latimer Square to Manchester Street south of Bealey Avenue. In 2003 the Prostitutes Reform Act decriminalised sex work, operating a brothel, living off the proceeds of someone else’s sex work and street solicitation.

5.2       Organisations report that in 2007 the number of street-based sex workers in any given fortnight was approximately 70-77.

5.3       When the Central City was cordoned off after the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, workers were displaced from the city end of Manchester Street (south of Bealey Avenue) to north of Bealey Avenue (around Manchester Street from Purchas Street/Manchester Street corner).

5.4       Residents north of Bealey Avenue were and continue to be concerned with the impact of street-based sex workers, clients, minders and sightseers in their neighbourhood.

5.5       Residents north of Bealey Avenue sought a regulatory response from the Council, with the view that a bylaw would give the Police a tool to require workers to move on and act as a deterrent to workers choosing to operate in the area. 

5.6       From May 2017 the Council investigated options for a bylaw to regulate street-based sex work. The Police then advised that they did not wish to be involved in any bylaw enforcement action, and they did not support a bylaw to regulate an issue caused by a small number of workers. The Police did not wish to be involved in enforcement due to:

5.6.1   The limited enforcement tools available under the Local Government Act’s general bylaw-making powers (for example, no instant fines, no powers of arrest, no other enforcement powers);

5.6.2   Concerns with practical enforcement issues, including difficulty in gathering sufficient evidence for a prosecution and the costs involved in taking a prosecution for low-level antisocial behaviour.

5.7       At its 2 November 2017 meeting the Council resolved that it:

1.      Agree not to develop a bylaw at this stage that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

2.      Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street based sex workers to relocate away from the current area of concern or future areas of concern.

3.      Agree that Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, form a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

4.      Agree that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

5.      Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Regulatory Performance Committee on a quarterly basis on the progress of the collaborative community working group.

6.      Agree that the Council will consider funding in support of initiatives presented by the collaborative community working group.

      Councillor Swiggs moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Keown.

That the Council:

1.    Approach the Minister of Justice to request a review of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 to address the issue of street based sex work in residential neighbourhood areas.

A division was called and was declared a tie.

The status quo was maintained.

Current situation

5.8       Organisations report that the number of street-based sex workers in any given fortnight has decreased from approximately 70-77 to approximately 7-13.

5.9       Numbers have likely decreased as more workers advertise online and work indoors (at home or elsewhere). However, some workers may be unable to work from home as family or friends live with them, unable to afford renting premises or enjoy the flexible hours and comradery of operating on the street.

5.10    Since mid-2017 all street-based sex workers have relocated from north of Bealey Avenue to south of Bealey Avenue (around Manchester Street from Bealey Avenue to Kilmore Street), except for one to two workers who continue to operate north of Bealey Avenue.

5.11    However residents and businesses south of Bealey Avenue are concerned with the impact of street-based sex workers, clients, minders and sightseers in their neighbourhood.

6.   Community development approach to street-based sex work

Project outline

6.1       In 2008 the Prostitution Law Review Committee recommended that a non-regulatory approach is most likely to minimise the impact of street-based sex work (regardless of where it is located) and enhance the quality of life of workers.

6.2       In response to the Council’s resolution (refer paragraph 5.8), a Collaborative Community Working Group (CCWG) was established in December 2017 with residents, advocates of street-based sex workers and other key organisations and agencies.  The CCWG’s purpose is to form partnerships with diverse interests to understand issues and jointly develop solutions at a local level to achieve positive outcomes for all affected parties.

6.3       The CCWG agreed that the outcomes it would like to achieve are that:

6.3.1   Residents and street-based sex workers experience a good quality of life;

6.3.2   Street-based sex workers operate in an area that is safe and welcoming.

Actions and key milestones

Resolution 1Agree not to develop a bylaw at this stage that regulates the location of street-based sex workers away from residential areas.

Actions

Key milestones

No further work to be undertaken.

N/a

 

Resolution 2: Agree that Council, in partnership with the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective, form a collaborative community working group that will include the Non-Government Organisations, the New Zealand Police, and affected residents, to develop and undertake further actions to support the relocation of street-based sex workers.

Actions

Key milestones

Action 2.1: Form a collaborative community working group.

 

A Collaborative Community Working Group (CCWG) was formed in December 2017. To date three meetings have been held, and meetings will continue monthly.

The Collaborative Working Group’s membership includes (but is not limited to):

·    Christchurch City Council (elected members and staff)

·    Christchurch Methodist Mission

·    Community and Public Health

·    Ministry of Social Development

·    New Zealand Police (the Police)

·    New Zealand Prostitutes Collective (NZPC)

·    Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust

·    Resident(s)

·    Salvation Army

·    St Luke’s in the City Anglican Church

·    University of Otago

·    Youth and Cultural Development (YCD)

 

Residents and businesses have been invited to join the CCWG. To date one resident has joined.

Actions relating to the relocation of the street-based sex workers are reported below under Resolution 3.

 

Resolution 3: Agree that Council staff continue to work with all parties to encourage street-based sex workers to relocate away from the current area of concern or future areas of concern.

Note: The current areas of concern are both north and south of Bealey Avenue. At this time the Working Group is developing and undertaking actions to encourage street-based sex workers to relocate from north of Bealey Avenue only.

Street-based sex workers have operated on Manchester Street south of Bealey Avenue since the mid-1990s, and many residents and businesses made an informed choice when deciding to live or work in this area. One of the priorities of the Working Group is to enhance the quality of life of residents and businesses south of Bealey Avenue by deterring anti-social behaviour.

Actions

Key milestones

Action 3.1: Collect the views of residents on what would encourage street-based sex workers to relocate.

 

A drop-in session was held north of Bealey Avenue in December 2017 to gather views from residents on ways to encourage street-based sex workers to relocate. Proposed solutions included increasing Police visibility, installing signage warning drivers that CCTV camera operate in the area, preventing vehicles from turning into the northbound lane of Manchester Street from Bealey Avenue to disrupt clients’ circuit and improving amenities for workers south of Bealey Avenue.

Action 3.2: Request that street-based sex workers relocate.

 

NZPC visits this area up to seven nights per week to request that workers relocate from north of Bealey Avenue (employed for two nights and up to five additional nights on a voluntary basis). NZPC also regularly requests that workers relocate by text and in newsletters.

The Police have recently been tasked to have a high profile presence in this area. If the Police observe someone acting in a manner that contravenes the law there are a range of options available, including a warning, prosecution or arrest.

One to two workers continue to operate in the area despite these actions.

Action 3.3:  Install signage to alert people that CCTV cameras operate in the area.

A CCTV camera is located at the Manchester Street/Purchas Street corner. By May 2018 the Council will install six new signs to alert drivers and pedestrians that CCTV cameras operate in the area. These signs (750mm x 750mm) will replace two small existing signs (375mm x 375mm) that are only legible to pedestrians.

Action 3.4: Investigate traffic engineering options.

Council staff are investigating traffic engineering options north of Bealey Avenue.  Advice will be provided by mid-2018.

                     

Resolution 4: Agree that the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board be invited to support the collaborative community working group.

Actions

Key milestones

Action 4.1:  Invite the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to join the Collaborative Community Working Group.

Deon Swiggs and Alexandra Davids have been invited to meetings that have been held internally and with the Collaborative Community Working Group to ensure Community Board participation.  The Board will nominate representatives at its 3 April 2018 Board meeting.

 

Resolution 5: Instruct staff to monitor and evaluate the actions and outcomes and report to the Regulatory Performance Committee on a quarterly basis on the progress of the collaborative community working group.

Actions

Key milestones

Action 5.1:  Monitor and evaluate actions.

 

Actions are monitored and evaluated with the methods below:

·     Feedback from residents and businesses in areas of concern;

·     Feedback from street-based sex workers;

·     Feedback from agencies and organisations working directly with street-based sex workers.

Staff are investigating options for monitoring actions with CCTV footage, which would establish objective baselines of the number of workers operating in areas of concern as well as the types and frequency of anti-social behaviour displayed by workers, minders, clients, sightseers and passers-by.

Action 5.2:  Quarterly reports on progress.

The first reporting deadline has been met.

 

Resolution 6: Agree that the Council will consider funding in support of initiatives presented by the collaborative community working group.

Actions

Key milestones

Action 6.1: The Council to consider funding actions of the Collaborative Community Working Group.

Council staff are working with NZPC and the CCWG to develop a funding application for additional outreach work with street-based sex workers and liaison with residents.

 

Collaborative Community Working Group actions to date

The following actions have been undertaken by members of the Collaborative Community Working Group.

Working collaboratively using community development principles

Action 7.1: Engage with residents and businesses.

Residents and businesses were invited to join the Collaborative Community Working Group (CCWG) so they could meaningfully influence decisions affecting their lives. To date one resident has expressed interest in joining.

Council staff held a drop-in for residents of Manchester Street north of Bealey Avenue in December 2017, and a drop-in for residents and businesses of Manchester Street south of Bealey Avenue in February 2018. NZPC attended both drop-ins. The purpose of the drop-ins was to hear from affected residents and businesses about their experiences with street-based sex work and their proposed solutions.

The key concerns of the majority of residents and business both north and south of Bealey Avenue are:

·    Intimidation from anti-social behaviour of street-based sex workers, clients, minders and sightseers, including noise at all hours, defecation on private property and public places, used condoms and syringes left on private property and public places, propositioned during day and night and damage to private property;

·    Lack of response from agencies and organisations to anti-social behaviour;

·    Street-based sex work is inappropriate for any residential area and should be relocated to a commercial area;

·    Empathy and concern for street-based sex workers well-being and safety.

·    A minority of residents and businesses did not feel that street-based sex work negatively impacted their quality of life.

A newsletter was distributed to residents and businesses, including notes of the drop-ins and who to contact about litter, noise, concern for sex workers’ welfare or any other matters. 

A drop-in session for residents and businesses will be held in April 2018 to provide a progress update, hear about the community’s current experiences and continue to discuss possible solutions. Key members of the CCWG will be present to provide updates and answer questions.

Action 7.2: Communicate with street-based sex workers.

Dr Gillian Abel, Associate Professor at Otago University, is conducting a two-year study into street-based sex work in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch focussing on violence and exploitation, coercion (particularly under-age street-based sex work), the relationship between street-based sex workers and the Police, community tensions (among residents, businesses and street-based sex workers) and local Council perceptions of regulation.  The Christchurch-based research is planned to be complete by mid-2018.

NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army regularly talk with workers. Council staff met with workers in February 2018 to provide an update on the CCWG’s actions and hear about proposed ways to enhance workers’ quality of life. Proposed actions included an additional rubbish bin, a sharps disposal unit and a public toilet.

Action 7.3: Enhance quality of life for residents.

Encourage street-based sex workers and minders to behave in a neighbourly way: NZPC and YCD regularly request that sex workers and minders do not display anti-social behaviour.

NZPC and YCD also encourage residents and businesses to advise them of anti-social behaviour so they can request that workers and minders stop displaying this behaviour.

High Police presence: The Police have recently been tasked to have a high profile presence in this area to discourage antisocial behaviour. If the Police observe someone acting in a manner that contravenes the law there are a range of options available, including a warning, prosecution or arrest.

Improve street cleaning:  NZPC picks up litter, including used condoms and defecation, when requested by residents and businesses.  The Council picks up litter on an as needed basis. The public may contact the Council Call Centre or report litter with the Snap Send Solve smartphone app.  The Rodger Wright Centre disposes of used sharps discarded in public places in this area once per week.

Additional rubbish bin: In March 2018 Council installed an additional rubbish bin on the Manchester Street/Aberdeen Street corner to mitigate litter, including used condoms.

Sharps disposal unit: Council staff, with support from NZPC, the Rodger Wright Centre and Community and Public Health, are investigating options for a public sharps disposal unit to reduce the quantity of sharps being discarded on private property and public places.

Clean empty lots around Manchester Street: Residents requested that two empty lots with long grass be mown to deter anti-social behaviour.  In January 2018 a property on Colombo Street that has been reportedly used for sexual activity was mowed. Council staff are investigating whether the grass on an empty section on Manchester Street is a fire hazard. If so the Council will issue a Fire Hazard Notice to the property owner, who will be given one month to comply.

Action 7.4: Enhance the safety and quality of life of street-based sex workers.

Enhance wraparound social services for street-based sex workers: Wraparound social services are a joined-up, holistic approach to addressing a vulnerable person’s needs. While the purpose of providing wraparound social services for street-based sex workers is primarily to enhance their quality of life, it is also understood that through this provision, the quality of life of residents and people working in the area is enhanced as people who receive the support and services they need are less likely to display anti-social behaviour. 

NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army provide street-based sex workers with a variety of social services including:

·    An outreach van where workers can take a break at night in a safe space and receive hot drinks, food and sexual health materials;

·    Free sexual health clinic;

·    Free counselling;

·    Support with accessing addiction, housing, financial assistance, sexual assault recovery and other services;

·    Information on how to stay safe at work;

·    Support for sex workers seeking other employment options.

The organisations provide these services during business hours at their offices, and conduct street outreach at night. NZPC operates up to seven nights per week (employed for two nights and up to five additional nights on a voluntary basis), YCD operates two nights per week and the Salvation Army operates one night per week.

NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army, with support from the CCWG, are investigating options to enhance the wraparound services provided for workers. Initial analysis indicates that there are gaps in current services, and opportunities to provide stronger and more coordinated support. This analysis started in February 2018 and is ongoing.

Opportunities identified to date include building relationships between NZPC, YCD and the Salvation Army and dedicated staff in Work and Income centres. These organisations are working with the Ministry of Social Development to implement this action.

 

Signage to promote community safety: NZPC requested signage around Manchester Street south of Bealey Avenue advising drivers and pedestrians that CCTV cameras operate in the area to promote community safety.

Council staff have identified locations for the signage, and are investigating designs that promote safety.

 

6.4       Next steps

6.4.1   The Collaborative Community Working Group will continue to meet monthly to jointly develop and undertake actions to achieve the desired outcomes.

6.4.2   A drop-in with residents and businesses around Manchester Street north and south of Bealey Avenue will be held in April 2018 to to provide a progress update, hear about the community’s current experiences with street-based sex work and continue to discuss possible solutions.

6.4.3   The next quarterly progress report will be presented in July 2018.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Jenny Hughey - Principal Advisor

Approved By

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

Lester Wolfreys - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

10.    Dog Registration and Associated Fees 2018 - 2019

Reference:

18/356873

Presenter(s):

Mark Vincent, Team Leader Animal Management

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

The Committee discussed how legislation stipulates that the dog registration year commences on 1 July. This requires the Council to start notifying dog owners of the requirements in May each year. This means that the fees cannot be set through annual plan or long term plan processes. The Committee made an additional recommendation that the Council approaches central Government to review the timing to allow the fees to be adopted at the same time as councils’ annual plans.

 

2.  Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Adopts the schedule of Dog Control Registration Fees, and Licence Fees to keep more than two dogs, for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Option 1 of Attachment A.

2.         Adopts the schedule of Dog Pound fees for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Option 1 of Attachment B.

3.         Notes that the schedules include fees for:

a.         The registration of dogs of different categories as allowed under the Dog Control Act 1996

b.         The licence to keep more than Two dogs (properties less than 10,000m2 in area)

c.         The impounding, boarding, adoption and disposal of impounded dogs

4.         Requests central Government to align the timing of dog registration with the Long Term Plan process, and to shift the dog registration commencement date to 1 August.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Dog Registration and Associated Fees 2018 - 2019

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Dog Control Registration+MTTD Fees Table 2018-19

2

b

Dog Pound proposed fees schedule 2018-2019

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Dog Registration and Associated Fees 2018 - 2019

Reference:

18/229596

Presenter(s):

Mark Vincent – Team Leader Animal Management

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Regulatory Performance Committee to recommend to Council the approval of dog registration fees and other Animal Management charges for the 2018/2019 year. The registration year begins each 1 July and runs through until 30 June in the following year. The Dog Control Act 1996 requires dogs to be registered by 1 July the first day of the year. The Council notify all known dog owners in late May of the need to register, beginning the actual registration process by 1 June.

 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report Is being provided by the Team Leader Animal Management to comply with S37 of the Dog Control Act 1996, which requires a territorial authority to prescribe the fees for registration and control of dogs under the Act

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report has been assessed as 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 completion of the worksheet for recording significance. The fees are an existing obligation placed on dog owners and supported by legislation. There are no new fee requested and fee options relate to existing fee categories with fees of varying levels

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment.  In line with existing processes, dog owners will be advised of the registration fees payable for the 2018-2019 year through the annual reminder process whereby owners are sent a reminder notice with information about registration.  Advice regarding the dog control fee structure will also be given via the Council’s online Newsline facility and as a legislative requirement, the Council notifies the approved fee schedule for dog control through a newspaper advertisement in the month of June.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Adopts the schedule of Dog Control Registration Fees, and Licence Fees to keep more than two dogs, for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Option 1 of Attachment A.

2.         Adopts the schedule of Dog Pound fees for the 2018/19 Financial Year as set out in Option 1 of Attachment B.

3.         Notes that the schedules include fees for:

a.         The registration of dogs of different categories as allowed under the Dog Control Act 1996

b.         The licence to keep more than Two dogs (properties less than 10,000m2 in area)

c.         The impounding, boarding, adoption and disposal of impounded dogs

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Regulatory Compliance, Licencing and Registration

 

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.3       Dog Registration and More than Two Dogs Licence fees  (Attachment A)

·     Option 1 – (Recommended) Approval of a schedule of fees based on an across the board increase of $2.00 per dog in dog registration fees and a $2.00 increase in more than two dogs licence fees

·     Option 2 – Approval of a schedule of fees based on an across the board $1.00 increase per dog in dog registration fees and a $1.00 increase in more than two dogs licence fees

·     Option 3 – Approval of a schedule of fees including dog registration fees and More than two dog licence fees that are based on the fees charged for the 2017/2018 year (no change option)

4.4       Dog Pound Fees (Attachment B)

·    Option 1 – (Recommended) Approval of a range of increased Dog Pound fees

·    Option 2 – Approval of a range of increased Dog Pound fees based on the fees for the 2017/2018 year (No change option)

 

Please note: Council is asked to make separate decisions on approval related to Dog Registration and Licence to Keep More than Two Dogs fees; and the approval of Dog Pound fees as these affect different parts of the business and are not reliant on one another 

 

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Options)

4.5.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides the ability for the Animal Management section to provide a thorough and complete Dog Control service to the citizens of Christchurch that is self-funded and meets community service expectations.

·     Provides an improved ability for the Council in the provision of Dog Pound facilities  

·     Provides an increased ability to encourage compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 2016 including registration and other requirements.

4.5.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Some resistance from dog owners to an increase in registration fees, and possible resistance from owners to claim or adopt dogs from the Council Animal Shelter.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Dog Control Act 1996

5.1       Section 37 of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires the Council to set fees payable for registration of dogs within its area

·   The last approved increase in fees was in 2016 and was based on a general $1.00 increase in registration fees per dog.

Animal Management funding

5.2       Section 9 of the Dog Control Act 1996 requires that all money received and retained by a territorial authority under the Act shall be expended only for purposes authorised by or under the Act.

5.3       The funding provided by the fee schedule approved by Council is the main revenue funding stream available to the Animal Management section of Council for Dog Control activities. The section does not rely on funding provided from general rates to cover expenses associated the control of dogs.

 

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Preferred option - $2.00 increase in Dog Registration and More than Two Dogs Licence fees; and increased Dog Pound fees

Option Description

6.1       Increase dog registration fees by $2.00 per dog, more than two dogs licence fees by $2.00 as in Attachment A; and also increase dog pound fees as provided as in Attachment B.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Dog owners are affected by any increase in fees.  Their views could be that no increase is desirable.  For Council to be able to meet the community’s service expectations an incremental fee increase now as opposed to a larger increase in the future is likely to be more tolerable. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – The cost of implementation is minimal as it relates to staff time to maintain fees in the dog registration and customer service systems.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - no extra cost.

6.9       Funding source - No additional funding is required to implement this option

Legal Implications

6.10    The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that the fees charged by Council under the Act are those fixed by resolution by the Council.  The Council may fix different registration fees for different categories of dogs, and may fix a penalty fee for dogs that are registered after the due date. The Council fixed the current schedule of fees in 2016.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.12    There is a risk that there may be dissatisfaction from dog owners caused by an increase in registration (and other fees).  This may result in some resistance in owners to registering dogs, claiming impounded dogs, or adopting dogs from the dog shelter

6.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be Low.

6.12.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include working with dog owners to encourage compliance with the need to register and to claim dogs.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - A decision to approve the dog registration fees has to be made at the Councils April meeting. To enable dog owners to meet their legal obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996

6.14    Implementation timeframe – all dogs are required to be registered prior to the registration year commencing on 1 July each year.

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides the ability for the Animal Management section to provide a thorough and complete Dog Control service to the citizens of Christchurch that is self-funded and meets community service expectations.

·   Provides an increased ability to encourage compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 2016 including registration and other requirements

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   an increase in registration and other fees for dog owners.

·   possible resistance by owners to register their dogs caused by the increase in fees.

·   potential extra cost of compliance activities to encourage dog owners to register.

7.   Option 2 – Secondary option - $1.00 increase in Dog Registration and More than Two Dogs Licence fees, and increased Dog Pound fees

Option Description

7.1       Increase dog registration fees by $1.00 per dog, more than two dogs licence fees by $1.00 as in Attachment A; and also increase dog pound fees as provided for in Attachment B.

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       Dog owners are affected by any increase in fees.  Their views could be that no increase is desirable. For Council to be able to meet the community’s service expectations an incremental fee increase now as opposed to a larger increase in the future is likely to be more tolerable. 

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 – The cost of implementation is minimal as it relates to staff time to maintain fees in the dog registration and customer service systems.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - no extra cost.

7.9       Funding source - No additional funding is required to implement this option

 

Legal Implications

7.10    The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that the fees charged by Council under the Act are those fixed by resolution by the Council.  The Council may fix different fees for different categories of dogs, and may fix a penalty fee for dogs that are registered after the due date. The Council fixed the current schedule of fees in 2016.

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    There is a risk that there may be dissatisfaction from dog owners caused by an increase in registration (and other fees).  This may result in some resistance in owners to registering dogs, claiming impounded dogs, or adopting dogs from the dog shelter

7.12.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be Low

7.12.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include working with dog owners to encourage compliance with the need to register and to claim dogs.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - A decision to approve the dog registration fees has to be made at the Councils April meeting. To enable dog owners to meet their legal obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – all dogs are required to be registered prior to the registration year commencing on 1 July each year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides the ability for the Animal Management section to provide a thorough and complete Dog Control service to the citizens of Christchurch that is self-funded and meets community service expectations (albeit slower than option 1).

·   Provides an increased ability to encourage compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Christchurch City Dog Control Bylaw 2016 including registration and other requirements

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   An increase in registration and other fees for dog owners.

·   A slower introduction of the increase and expansion of Dog Control services to the citizens of Christchurch than has been envisioned over the next several years.

·   possible resistance by owners to register their dogs caused by the increase in fees.

·   potential extra cost of compliance activities to encourage dog owners to register.

8.   Option 3 – Maintaining current fee structure

Option Description

8.1       To retain the fee structure for the registration of dogs, More than two dogs licence fees as in attachment A, and dog pound fees as in Attachment B.  A review of the current 2017/18 is timely as the fee structure was last approved by Council in 2016.

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 low.

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       Dog owners are specifically affected by this option.  Their views may be that retention of the current fee structure is preferable.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation – There is no cost of implementation as this option is already in place.

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - no extra cost

8.9       Funding source - No additional funding is required to implement this option

Legal Implications

8.10    The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that the fees charged by Council under the Act are those fixed by resolution by the Council.  The Council may fix different fees for different categories of dogs, and may fix a penalty fee for dogs that are registered after the due date. The Council fixed the current schedule of fees in 2016. 

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

Risks and Mitigations

8.12    There is a risk that retaining fees at current levels will lead to inability to meet or increase service levels to citizens caused by budget constraints. 

8.13    There is the risk that retaining the current fee structure may result in a need to increase fees to a greater degree at a future time.

8.13.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment(s) is implemented will be Low.

8.13.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include the review and reprioritizing of service levels to allow service delivery within budget.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies - A decision to approve the dog registration fees has to be made at the Councils April meeting, to enable dog owners to meet their legal obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996.

8.15    Implementation timeframe – all dogs are required to be registered prior to the registration year commencing on 1 July each year.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Costs remain consistent with previous years for dog owners.  May be the most favourable fee option for dog owners.

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Being a restraining influence in the increase and expansion of Dog Control services to the citizens of Christchurch than has been envisioned over the next several years.

·   Animal Management Services are unable to be delivered within planned budget.

·   May result in a request to Council for a greater fee increase at a future time

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Dog Control Registration+MTTD Fees Table 2018-19

 

b 

Dog Pound proposed fees schedule 2018-2019

 

 

 

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

Mark Vincent - Team Leader Animal Management

Brent Ablett - Finance & Systems Coordinator

Approved By

Tracey Weston - Head of Regulatory Compliance

Gill Robertson - Finance Business Partner

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Regulatory Performance Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

11.    Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area

Reference:

18/356916

Presenter(s):

Evangeline Emerenciana, Policy Analyst

 

 

 

1.  Regulatory Performance Committee Consideration

 

Staff requested that a correction to the report be recorded. Paragraph 5.13 of the staff report should read that Council adopted the plan in December 2017, not December 2018.

 

2.  Staff and Regulatory Performance Committee Recommendation to Council

 

That the Council:

1.         Receives the information on the review of the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban.

2.         Agrees that there is sufficient support for a new alcohol ban to be imposed to create positive impacts to Linwood Village community.

3.         Notes that a new ban complements a series of consultations on community-based responses to address safety issues initiated by local partners Te Whare Roimata, Council’s Linwood-based community governance team, the Urban Regeneration Team and Regenerate Christchurch as part of the revitalisation process.

4.         Resolves that it is satisfied that:

a.         With respect to the area to which the temporary Alcohol Ban applies, a high level of crime or disorder is likely to arise if the temporary Alcohol ban Area is not continued; and

b.         The ban, made under the Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009, as applied by the resolution:

i.          Is appropriate and proportionate  in the light of the evidence; and

ii.         Can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

5.         Resolves to impose under Clause 5 of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 a temporary alcohol ban in the area bounded by Fitzgerald Avenue (East side), and both sides of the streets – Armagh Street, England Street, and Hereford Street (see Attachment A – map), 24 hours a day, seven days a week for six months from 20 June 2018.

6.         Notes that the temporary ban can be made permanent in conjunction with a possible replacement of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 later this year.

7.         Requests staff to place a Public Notice in the newspaper and make alcohol ban information available to all relevant stakeholders in and around the ban area.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed Temporary alcohol ban area map - Linwood

2

b

Review report of the effectiveness of the Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village area

2

c

Survey Responses (Under Separate Cover)

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area

Reference:

18/168955

Presenter(s):

Evangeline Emerenciana, Policy Analyst

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend the continuation of the temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village. 

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil the Council resolution (CNCL/2017/355) from the 20 December 2017 meeting:

“requests Strategic Policy staff to coordinate a review of the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban area in early 2018, and to report back to the Council on this and on options as to whether the ban is continued past its current timeframe.”

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.

2.2       The low level of significance was determined by there being a relatively small number of people affected, or with an interest in the decision of the Council; and the Council having the ability to easily reverse a decision to have a temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Regulatory Performance Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Receives the information on the review of the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban.

2.         Agrees that there is sufficient support for a new alcohol ban to be imposed to create positive impacts to Linwood Village community.

3.         Notes that a new ban complements a series of consultations on community-based responses to address safety issues initiated by local partners Te Whare Roimata, Council’s Linwood-based community governance team, the Urban Regeneration Team and Regenerate Christchurch as part of the revitalisation process.

4.         Resolves that it is satisfied that:

a.         With respect to the area to which the temporary Alcohol Ban applies, a high level of crime or disorder is likely to arise if the temporary Alcohol ban Area is not continued; and

b.         The ban, made under the Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009, as applied by the resolution:

i.          Is appropriate and proportionate  in the light of the evidence; and

ii.         Can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

5.         Resolves to impose under Clause 5 of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 a temporary alcohol ban in the area bounded by Fitzgerald Avenue (East side), and both sides of the streets – Armagh Street, England Street, and Hereford Street (see Attachment 1 – map), 24 hours a day, seven days a week for six months from 20 June 2018.

6.         Notes that the temporary ban can be made permanent in conjunction with a possible replacement of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 later this year.

7.         Requests staff to place a Public Notice in the newspaper and make alcohol ban information available to all relevant stakeholders in and around the ban area.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and  Policy

·     Level of Service: 17.0.9 Provision of strategic advice on the social and economic issues facing the city

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Have a further temporary alcohol ban in effect in the Linwood Village area (see Attachment 1) from June 2018 to the end of December 2018 (preferred)

·     Option 2 -  Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The alcohol ban is intended to support other non-regulatory approaches to improving social order and wellbeing in the Linwood Village area.

·     The alcohol ban gives Police the ability to quickly intervene and effectively respond to incidents of alcohol consumption in public places within the ban area before these escalate to more serious situations.

·     Anecdotal evidence is that the current alcohol ban has reduced the occurrence of groups of people drinking alcohol in public places in the vicinity of Linwood Village shopping area and Doris Lusk Reserve.

·     Local residents and business owners report feeling safer and less anxious with the reduction of alcohol-related disorder problems in the shopping area.

4.3.2         The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An alcohol restriction limits the personal freedom of responsible alcohol consumers in the area.

·     The alcohol ban may result in public drinking shifting to parks or vacant lots adjacent to the ban area or to other locations that may result in localised anti-social disorder issues.

·     Some cost implications for public notices and media releases, though these are minor and can be funded from existing budgets.

 

5.   Context/Background

Current Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village Area

5.1       On 7 December 2017, the Council adopted a recommendation from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for an urgent investigation into establishing a temporary alcohol ban in the Linwood Village area following representations made to the Board by a Police community constable, local business owners and residents on 6 November 2017.

5.2       Having considered the further information provided at its 20 December 2017 meeting, the Council resolved to introduce a temporary alcohol ban in the Linwood Village area.  The temporary alcohol ban applies in the area bounded by: Fitzgerald Avenue (East side) and both sides of Armagh, England, and Hereford Streets, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This temporary alcohol ban will expire on 19 June 2018.

5.3       The resolution requested Strategic Policy staff to coordinate a review of the effectiveness of the temporary alcohol ban area, in early 2018, and to report back to the Council on options as to whether the ban is continued past its current timeframe.

5.4        A further part of the resolution requested Council Community Development staff to work with Te Whare Roimata, the Police and other partner agencies on community development approaches to address wider social issues in the Linwood area and report back to the Linwood-Heathcote-Central Community Board within six months. This will be the subject of a separate report to the Board.

Effectiveness of the alcohol restrictions in Linwood Village ban area

5.5       The temporary alcohol ban was applied in the Linwood Village area to reduce disorder caused by people drinking in public areas such as streets, local parks and bus shelters.  The ban enables the Police to intervene when public drinking occurs and manage other associated safety issues so that the local residents can enjoy their community peacefully and businesses can thrive and service local residents effectively.   

5.6       Staff consulted key stakeholders including Police community constables, local business owners, residents, Te Whare Roimata, Council community governance staff working in the Linwood area, and the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to determine their views on the impacts of the alcohol ban.

5.7       There is general agreement that the ban has helped to reduce alcohol-related offences. The Police say that since the ban was introduced last year they have seen less evidence of public drinking problems occurring in Linwood Village.

5.8       Specific comments from residents and stakeholders who submitted views are included in Attachment 2.

Alcohol Ban Options in Linwood Village Area

5.9       The Council’s Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 needs to be replaced by 18 December 2018, as required by the Local Government (Alcohol Reform) Amendment Act 2012, and Council will need to address the continuation of all alcohol ban areas this year.

5.10    In light of this upcoming work there would be little point in undertaking a standalone bylaw amendment process to propose making the Linwood Village Area Ban permanent. A more effective and efficient approach is for the Council to make a further temporary ban for the area and to address the possibility of a permanent ban as part of the wider bylaw review.

5.11    The proposed ban would have the same scope and conditions as the current ban.

5.12    Staff asked the Police, Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, Te Whare Roimata, local residents and business owners, Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board, and Council’s Urban Regeneration staff to determine whether they support temporary alcohol restrictions being imposed when the current alcohol ban expires on 19 June 2018.

Non-regulatory approaches to reducing alcohol-related issues

5.13    The Council, Police and Canterbury District Health Board have collaborated to produce the Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan, adopted by the Council in December 2018. The Plan details objectives and actions together to reduce alcohol-related harm. An implementation plan is being prepared which is expected to identify non-regulatory approaches to alcohol issues in the Linwood Village area that support the regulatory approach of the alcohol ban.

5.14    Te Whare Roimata is facilitating a community-led process to prepare a Linwood Revitalisation Plan. This will identify possible community solutions to address a number of issues, including those around safety and public use of alcohol issues. Stakeholders have suggested that a collective conversation with community members on a range of possible actions to address safety issues, nuisance, substance use, addiction, and begging be initiated as part of the revitalisation process.    

6.   Local Government Act (section 147A) analysis

6.1       Section 147A of the Local Government Act 2002 details the criteria that must be satisfied before the Council makes or continues a bylaw for alcohol control purposes. Specifically, the Council must be satisfied an alcohol ban is a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

6.2       The Council must also be satisfied that there is evidence that the area to which the bylaw is intended to apply has experienced a high level of crime or disorder that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area. The bylaw is to be appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime or disorder.

6.3       The NZ Police were strong advocates of the initial alcohol ban as a means to address significant social disorder in Linwood Village. This included large groups congregating to drink in parks, vacant lots and streets in the vicinity of the Linwood Village shopping are. It also included instances of aggressive begging and intimidation of shoppers and passers-by.

6.4       Police believe the current alcohol ban is working well.  They have noted that nuisance behaviour related to alcohol consumption has reduced significantly. Since the ban was imposed, they have handed out just three infringement notices to people breaching the ban and two people were subsequently arrested.

6.5       Staff received and analysed the New Zealand Police Calls for Service (CFS) data of alcohol-related offences in and around Linwood Village area for the period from 20 December 2017 to 21 February 2018 (the first two months the ban has been in place). Calls related to disorder or breaches of the peace in the Linwood Village area reduced by 11 percent while drunk custody has significantly reduced by 50 percent, as compared to the same period in 2016/17. However the Police note that the available data is limited and a longer time period is required for a robust assessment.

6.6       NZ Police have received emails from local residents and business owners who say the alcohol ban has improved their community, with people again using the local shops and Doris Lusk Reserve.  These residents also indicate their community feels safer compared to before the ban was put in place. 

6.7       While the current alcohol ban has been seen by most to have made a significant difference to perceptions of safety in Linwood Village, it is certainly not a silver bullet. Stakeholders report there is still drinking and drug use as well as begging in the area. This highlights the need for an alcohol ban to be complemented by comprehensive community development initiatives if genuine progress is to be made on the issues evident in the Linwood Village area.

6.8       Taking into account the positive views of NZ Police, local shoppers, and business owners in the ban area, it is clear that many local stakeholders consider the benefits of the ban in Linwood Village outweigh the restrictions on personal freedom.

 

7.   Option 1 – Have a further temporary alcohol ban in effect in the Linwood Village area from June 2018 to the end of December 2018 (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       The Council resolves to impose a further Temporary Alcohol Ban in the Linwood Village area from 19 June to 30 December 2018.  The new temporary alcohol ban would have the same conditions as the current Linwood Village alcohol ban and would apply to the same area as the current ban; bounded by - Fitzgerald Avenue (East side) and both sides of the streets of Armagh Street, England Street, and Hereford Street, and applies at all times, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to commence upon expiration of the current alcohol ban.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

7.4       Full community engagement will be undertaken on any proposal to make the temporary alcohol ban permanent.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       This option does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       Staff consulted key stakeholders and local residents and business owners in Linwood Village area.  This was undertaken by hosting multi-stakeholder meetings and using a mail-out survey to reach local residents and business owners.

7.7       The following is a summary of the views expressed: 

7.7.1         NZ Police support a new temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village and the surrounding area. They believe the ban has helped address alcohol-related incidents and assist them to prevent other offences and has been an effective tool in reducing anti-social behaviour in public places in the Linwood Village area.

The Police have received emails from local residents and business owners saying the alcohol ban has improved their community with people with people starting to come the local shops and Doris Lusk Reserve.  These residents also indicate their community feels safer now compared to before the ban was put in place. 

7.7.2         The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board are in favour of another temporary alcohol ban being imposed past June this year.

7.7.3         Te Whare Roimata is leading the development of the Linwood Revitalisation Plan. They did not indicate whether they support or not of a new temporary ban. They say they focused on working with the local community to develop long term and enduring solutions to the complex issues in Linwood.  The Council’s Linwood-based community governance team, Urban Regeneration Team and other community-based organisations are assisting in this process.

7.7.4   Local people in the Linwood Village area were contacted and asked to provide feedback about the current alcohol ban.  Nineteen local residents and business owners responded through the survey. Of these, 16 were in support of the temporary alcohol ban and in making the ban permanent at some point in the future. Three residents who responded did not expressly ‘support or not support’ a new alcohol ban. Two of these, however, would like to see a permanent ban put in place.

7.7.5   Of those who responded, most would like to see a ban in place beyond the current six month timeframe. A number of these people would like to see Linwood Village as an alcohol-free area, where issues of aggressive begging and drug use are also being addressed.

Excerpts of views sent by a number of local people in Linwood Village to staff –

“Not in favour of temporary alcohol ban continuation – it needs to be permanent.” Stop begging outside shops as its affecting children being able to walk to shops.”

“Loved to see it permanent. Can’t walk to shop and was intimidated when I was in money machine as there was somebody sitting there… you know older people go to closest supermarket as most of them only walk.”

“I support alcohol free area. I support retaining the alcohol ban having a brother who lives near me and is a recovering alcoholic with permanent alcohol related disabilities.”

“Should be expanded to Tuam Street and Avonside Drive.”

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.8       This option aligns with Council’s Plans, Strategies, and Policies. Specific alignment identified is:

Community Outcomes

       People have a sense of connection to and participate in their community

·    People have strong social networks

·    Services are available locally within the urban areas

                    People participate in a wide range of recreational activities

·    People have equitable access to parks, open spaces, recreation facilities and libraries

        Communities are safe

·    People are safe from crime

·    Injuries and risks to public health are minimised

                Christchurch is a good place to do business

·    Christchurch is recognised as a great place to work, live, visit, invest and do business

          Strategic Priorities

·    Maximising opportunities to develop a vibrant, dynamic and sustainable 21st century city

            Christchurch Alcohol Action Plan

            Safer Christchurch City Strategy

·    Proactive partnerships that have a shared commitment to a Safe City

·    Reducing and preventing the incidence and effects of crime

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – If a new ban was imposed in Linwood Village area, $1,500 will be required for public notices and display advertisements for the temporary ban. No new signage will be required as the signs for the previous temporary ban would be re-used.

7.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The cost of enforcement rests with the New Zealand Police.

7.11    Funding source – Strategic policy and planning existing budget (Alcohol bans in public places).

Legal Implications

7.12    There are legal implications relevant to this decision. 

7.13    Alcohol Ban areas are imposed under Clause 5 of Christchurch City Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009.  In an Alcohol Ban Area, no person may: a) consume alcohol in a public places; or b) consume alcohol in a vehicle in a public place; or c) bring alcohol into a public place, whether in a vehicle or not; or d) possess alcohol in a public place, whether in a vehicle or not.

7.14    Before making a resolution under the Bylaw,  the Local Government Act 2002 (s147B) requires that the Council must be satisfied that –

(a)  There is evidence that the area to which the bylaw applies (or will apply by virtue of the resolution) has experienced a high level of crime or disorder  that can be shown to have been caused or made worse by alcohol consumption in the area; and

(b)  The bylaw, as applied by the resolution, -

(i)            Is appropriate and proportionate in the light of the evidence; and

(ii)           Can be justified as a reasonable limitation on people’s rights and freedoms.

The analysis to satisfy these requirements is detailed in section 6 of this report.          

7.15    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.16    There is a risk that people coming into the Linwood Village area are not aware of the alcohol ban in the area and undermine the effectiveness of the bylaw.

7.16.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below mitigation/s implemented will be low.

7.16.2 Planned and current mitigation is based on robust communication about the alcohol ban in the area – media release, social media, local community group advocacy and Police engagement with the local community.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies  - The Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw  2009 authorises Police to use their powers to enforce the alcohol ban, including the power to search containers and vehicles in public places for alcohol, seize and remove alcohol, and arrest any person found to be breaching the ban. Police are also able to issue infringement notices for breaching an alcohol ban of $250. 

7.18    Implementation timeframe – The proposal is to impose a new temporary alcohol ban to take effect as soon as the current alcohol ban expires on 19 June 2018.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·     The alcohol ban is intended to support other non-regulatory approaches to improving social order and wellbeing in the Linwood Village area.

·     The alcohol ban gives Police the ability to quickly intervene and effectively respond to incidents of alcohol consumption in public places within the ban area before these escalate to more serious situations.

·     Anecdotal evidence is that the current alcohol ban has reduced the occurrence of groups of people drinking alcohol in public places in the vicinity of Linwood Village shopping area and Doris Lusk Reserve.

·     Local residents and business owners report feeling safer and less anxious with the reduction of alcohol-related disorder problems in the shopping area.

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     An alcohol restriction limits the personal freedom of responsible alcohol consumers in the area.

·     The alcohol ban may result in public drinking shifting to parks or vacant lots adjacent to the ban area or to other locations that may result in localised anti-social disorder issues.

·     Some cost implications for public notices and media releases, though these are minor and can be funded from existing budgets.

8.   Option 2 –  Do not impose a temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village area past the current ban period, ending June 2018

Option Description

8.1       The Council does not have a temporary alcohol ban in Linwood Village area past the current alcohol ban which expires on 19 June 2018. This would not preclude the Council from proposing a permanent alcohol ban in Linwood Village when the Council Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009 is reviewed later this year or at any other time in the future.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with the analysis as per the Significance and Engagement Policy.

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not applicable at this time.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4       This option does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Key stakeholders engaged with believe that a new temporary alcohol ban past the current timeframe will serve as a stop gap measure until a permanent alcohol ban is considered as part of the review of the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places bylaw.

8.6       The Police believe regulatory continuity will enable the community to continue to adjust to public drinking restrictions and provides a usable tool for the Police address unacceptable behaviour associated with alcohol drinking and to intervene in street drinking situations before more serious crimes are committed.

8.7       Most residents who responded to a survey were in favour of the current ban and support a further ban being introduced.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.9       Cost of Implementation – Minor cost associated with removing existing signage.

8.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable

8.11    Funding source – Not applicable

Legal Implications

8.12    There are no legal implications to this decision.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.13    Linwood Village residents and business owners are likely to feel disappointed that the Council is not committed to promoting a safe environment in Linwood Village for them to enjoy.

8.13.1       Planned or current approaches include – New Zealand Police continue to manage some misbehaviour and disorderly caused by alcohol consumption with lesser impacts compared to having an alcohol ban which the Police could use as a policing tool to ensure good order of surrounding public areas in Linwood Village.

Implementation

8.14    Implementation dependencies  - Not applicable

8.15    Implementation timeframe – Not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no costs associated with this option other than for the removal of the existing ban signs. 

8.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Groups of people are likely to congregate in public places in and around Linwood Village, shopping area and park to drink alcohol.

·   Local people will feel unsafe to walk in and around Linwood Village with intoxicated people using parks, bus stops, streets and shopping area as venues for drinking. 

·   People will be fearful to use Doris Lusk Park, as they were before the current alcohol ban was imposed.

·   Police will not be able to intervene in situations where people are drinking alcohol in public until an offence has occurred. This takes away the more pre-emptive approaches possible with the alcohol ban in place.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Proposed Temporary alcohol ban area map - Linwood

 

b 

Review report of the effectiveness of the Temporary Alcohol Ban in Linwood Village area

 

c 

Survey Responses (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Evangeline Emerenciana - Policy Analyst

Gavin Thomas - Principal Advisor Economic Policy

Approved By

Helen Beaumont - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

12.    Regulatory Performance Committee Minutes - 11 April 2018

Reference:

18/356949

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Regulatory Performance Committee held a meeting on 11 April 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Regulatory Performance Committee meeting held 11 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Regulatory Performance Committee - 11 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

13.    Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018

Reference:

18/335728

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committee held a meeting on 4 April 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held 4 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - 4 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

14.    Well Head Security Improvements

Reference:

18/370151

Presenter(s):

David Adamson – General Manager City Services

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Resolves that the preferred approach to improving well head security is to raise well heads above ground wherever possible (including the appropriate treatment of the 16 shallow wells).

2.         Resolves to implement temporary chlorination in Wainui until its well is made secure.

3.         Reviews the overall capital programme in the Long Term Plan to identify funding sources to undertake the well head security improvements when the preferred approach and programme has been confirmed.

4.         Requests staff to examine the option of installing uV treatment instead of wellhead improvements where there are sound economic, expedience or long term advantages to this approach

5.         Approves staff to proceed with the delivery of works required to improve wellheads or install uV treatment

6.         Requests staff to bring back to a May ITE Committee or Council meeting, a draft programme of improvements actioned and proposed which takes into account the optimum solutions and interdependencies of the water network.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Reinforces the Council’s previous resolution that states:
“Requests staff continue best endeavours to complete this additional work within the 12 month timeframe”.

2.         Resolves that the preferred approach to improving well head security is to raise well heads above ground wherever practicable, affordable and timely and requests staff to examine the options of installing uV treatment, including leasing and/or purchasing, as an alternative to  wellhead improvements on a pump station by pump station basis where finance, timing and/or long term advantages have been considered.

3.         Approves staff to proceed with the delivery of works required to improve wellheads or install uV treatment when the solution is obvious due to its economic timing and practicality.

4.         Resolves to implement temporary chlorination in Wainui until its well is made secure.

5.         Requests staff identify funding sources to undertake the well head security improvements when the preferred approach and programme has been confirmed.

6.         Requests staff to bring back to a May ITE Committee or Council meeting, a report outlining progress to date and a draft programme of improvements proposed which takes into account the optimum solutions, timing, funding and interdependencies of the water network and future proofing.

7.         Request staff look at all other options to regain secure status or equivalent including renewal, remediating and/or the possibility of abandoning a wellhead.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Well Head Security Improvements

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Removal of security status for Wainui - letter from Drinking Water Assessor - 19 March 2018

2

b

Below Ground Wellheads Security Improvement Review (Beca, 20 March 2018) - Confidential

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Well Head Security Improvements

Reference:

18/283018

Presenter(s):

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to Council the preferred approach for improving the security of below ground well heads.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee resolution ITEC/2018/00004, part C, Item 3:

Requests that the cost and viability of replacing some of the below ground well heads with above ground structures and including scope, timing, capital and operational costs, within 2 months.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by following an assessment of the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy, particularly the number of people affected, the level of interest in this issue and the associated costs and risks.  

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Resolves that the preferred approach to improving well head security is to raise well heads above ground wherever possible (including the appropriate treatment of the 16 shallow wells).

2.         Resolves to implement temporary chlorination in Wainui until its well is made secure.

3.         Reviews the overall capital programme in the Long Term Plan to identify funding sources to undertake the well head security improvements when the preferred approach and programme has been confirmed.

4.         Requests staff to examine the option of installing uV treatment instead of wellhead improvements where there are sound economic, expedience or long term advantages to this approach

5.         Approves staff to proceed with the delivery of works required to improve wellheads or install uV treatment

6.         Requests staff to bring back to a May ITE Committee or Council meeting, a draft programme of improvements actioned and proposed which takes into account the optimum solutions and interdependencies of the water network.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Water Supply (combining water conservation).

·     Level of Service: 12.0.2 Ensure potable water is supplied in accordance with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand (microbiology).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Raise well heads above ground where possible and review the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Remediate below ground well heads where possible and review the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Provides best protection from potential contamination from groundwater or stormwater.

·     Complies with recommendations of Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry.

·     Meets current and likely future Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ) requirements.

·     Most likely option to achieve exemption from mandatory treatment.

·     Well heads easier to access and maintain – better health and safety.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Could take significantly longer to implement.

·     Higher capital cost.

·     Not so important if mandatory treatment is introduced (but does provide an additional barrier).

 

5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       In accordance with the Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ), the security of all water supply wells needs to be assessed by an expert in well head security assessments every five years. To comply with this, the Council has a rolling programme that assesses the security of approximately 20 percent of its wells each year. Previous assessments had found our wells to be secure.

5.2       Following the release of the Stage 1 Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry in May 2017, Council staff asked its maintenance contractor, Citycare, to investigate the quality of below ground wellheads, as these were identified as a potential source of contamination by the Inquiry.

5.3       Citycare’s investigation found that the well heads needed repairs and improvements to prevent contaminants entering them. In August 2017, Council staff instructed Citycare to proceed with the well head repair and improvement programme.

5.4       The latest round of well head security assessment reports, received as draft reports from Beca Ltd in December 2017, found that the wells that were assessed did not meet the security requirements of the DWSNZ. As a result, the Drinking Water Assessor advised that the water supply for Christchurch and Brooklands/Kainga were no longer provisionally secure.

5.5       The draft well head security assessment report for the Wainui well by Beca in December 2017 also found that this well was not secure. The Drinking Water Assessor removed secure status for Wainui on 19 March 2018 (Attachment A). Therefore, the same approach to improving well head security with temporary chlorination in the meantime should be taken for Wainui.

5.6       The final well head security assessment reports, including recommended improvements to make the wells secure, were received from Beca on 22 January 2018. These recommended improvements additional to those already being undertaken by Citycare. The main addition was the requirement to do external grouting and waterproofing around every single wellhead. The initial Citycare scope included the external grouting only at sites that were in a flood prone area. However, the Beca report stressed the fact that due to insufficient well construction information being available for older wells they were unable to conclude that the well casing was adequately protected from surface contamination, hence the need to grout around the outside. Another addition is the requirement to include air vents 0.5 m above flood level.

5.7       A revised scope was presented to Citycare, applying the recommendations of the Beca reports to all below ground wells, and Citycare were requested to provide a cost estimate for the increased scope. Citycare provided a cost estimate for the increased scope of $3,361,800 on 2 February 2018for the remediation of the below ground wellheads. Due to the increased scope, this was significantly more than the earlier $630,000 cost estimate.

5.8       Given the substantial increase in cost, it was asked whether improving below ground well heads was still the right approach and if a better long term solution would be to raise the well heads above ground.

5.9       The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee resolution ITEC/2018/00004, part C, Item 6 makes it clear that the duration of temporary chlorination should be minimised:

Requests staff continue best endeavours to complete this additional work within the 12 month timeframe.

Below Ground Wellheads Security Improvement Review Report

5.10    The report Below Ground Wellheads Security Improvement Review (Beca, 20 March 2018 – Attachment B) presents two scenarios for the 100 wells with below ground well heads:

·   Scenario 1 – remedial work to meet current DWSNZ.

·     Below ground wellheads are not dis-allowed under the current DWSNZ but they must be sealed to prevent the ingress of surface water and contaminants.

·     Designs for Scenario 1 include remedial work to the existing below ground wellheads (where possible).

·   Scenario 2 – remedial work to meet best practice and likely DWSNZ changes.

·     Above ground wellheads are best practice and are likely to assist in the application for a treatment exemption if Havelock North Inquiry recommendations are adopted.

·     Designs for Scenario 2 including filling in below ground wellheads and raising wellheads above ground (where possible).

5.11    The design approach for remediating below ground well heads (Scenario 1) seeks to protect the well head from water ingress by repairing the concrete structure (concrete injection, corbels, raising above flood levels, concrete apron) and from inundation by providing sump pumps in all well heads.  Air vents are also included and set outside the well head and above the 100 year flood level.  The wellhead floors are all likely to need replacement particularly following the sealing of the well casing annulus (the annulus is the space between the outside of the well casing and the ground).  Grout sealing the annulus of a well is required and many of the wells installed prior to 2011 did not include these types of seals.  This action was not included in Citycare’s earlier wellhead remediation plan and changes the cost and technical difficulty of properly remediating the below ground wellheads significantly.  

5.12    Sealing the well casing annulus can be done by “interval injection” around the well or by “over-drilling” the existing well casing and placing a grout seal.  Typically the injection method is cheaper and can be completed within an existing wellhead but is less reliable in terms of achieving a full annular seal to the depth required. It would meet the requirements of the current DWSNZ but may not meet the requirements if the DWSNZ are updated.  Over-drilling is more expensive but more reliable in achieving a full annular seal over a greater depth range. However, it is likely to involve significant damage to the existing well head to the point this option has only been included in Scenario 2 (raising the well head above ground).

5.13    Council’s well drilling contract documents already include “best practice” above ground well head design for new wells and this was adopted for the costing of Scenario 2 (raising the well head above ground).  This option would involve extending the well casing to ground level, installing the full annular grout seal (using the over-drilling method) and installing the above ground well head. This approach would bring the well heads up to the same standard as new installations and would meet both current and likely future DWSNZ requirements. 

5.14    The above ground well heads are also significantly easier to monitor and maintain and do not perpetuate the health and safety issues which below ground well heads have (e.g. confined spaces).  Monitoring and maintenance of water supply infrastructure is critical for ensuring a safe and reliable public water supply, particularly in a supply that does not have treatment and a disinfection residual.

5.15    Figure 1 is a diagram showing the injection and over-drilling methods for grouting.  The advantages and disadvantages of the two methods are compared in Table 1.

Table 1 – Advantages and disadvantages of injection and over-drilling methods of grouting

Grouting Method

Advantages

Disadvantages

Injection method

Can keep below ground chamber

Well can remain in service

Will take a few days

Smaller drill rig required

Meets current DWSNZ requirements

Full annular seal not guaranteed

May not meet future DWSNZ requirements

Over-drilling method

Full annular seal can be achieved

Meets current DWSNZ and more likely to meet future DWSNZ requirements

Larger drill rig required

Below ground chamber demolished in the process

Well cannot remain in service

Will take a couple of weeks

Not technically possible for some wells

 

Figure 1 – Diagram of injection and over-drilling methods of grouting

Wells that are unlikely to achieve secure bore status

5.16    However, there are 18 wells that are Beca advise are unlikely to be able to achieve secure bore status under the current DWSNZ regardless of whether the below ground well heads are made secure or converted to above ground well heads. This is due to their shallow draw off depth from Aquifer 1, location, or inaccessibility for remedial works. While we could do work to make the wellhead secure (and so meet DWSNZ Criterion 2 for bore water security), we are unlikely to be able to demonstrate that the bore water isn't affected by surface or climatic influences (DWSNZ Criterion 1).  All three bore water security criteria need to be met for a well to be signed off as secure. It should be noted however that Council lost its secure status based on wellhead security only.  Staff are currently preparing the information required to model the aquifers to deal with the issue of security of source.

5.17    Either these 18 wells could be replaced with deeper secure wells, or UV disinfection could be installed at some or all of these sites. If the wells were to be replaced, it needs to be considered whether they would be at the same or a different location. Given the large number of wells, this should be considered at a network level, to make sure they are in the best location to supply water long term to the city.

5.18    These 18 wells include two wells at Bexley which are already in the process of being replaced by two new wells at the new Ben Rarere Pump Station.

5.19    Of the remaining 16 wells that are unlikely to achieve secure status, 12 are in the Central zone (at eight pump stations) and four are in the North West zone (at two pump stations).

5.20    Seven of the wells are at three pump stations on the banks of the Heathcote River and at the foot of the Port Hills (Main Pumps, Palatine and Thorrington).  Due to the local geology, there are no deep aquifers in this area, so any replacement wells would need to be located elsewhere.

5.21    It is not possible to raise the well head at Dunbars Well 4 as it is in a driveway. The 3 Waters Operations Manager has advised that this well is not required.

5.22    Based on previous experience, we can drill 3 – 5 wells per year. Therefore, it could take 4 – 6 years to drill 16 replacement wells. This could be done under our well renewal programme, which has a draft LTP budget based on drilling three wells per year. Additional budget would be required in the first four or five years if more wells were to be drilled each year.

5.23    UV treatment could be installed at the 10 affected pump stations, either permanently or until replacement wells have been drilled, to reduce the duration of temporary chlorination.

5.24    If UV treatment was installed, it would treat the discharge from the pump station, rather than just the affected well. There is a total of 32 wells at the affected 10 pumps stations.

5.25    The cost of drilling 16 replacement deep wells would cost $15 million if these were located at existing pump stations. However, this may not be possible and one or two new pump stations may be required. A single pump station to replace Main Pumps Station may cost in the order of $14 million on top of the cost of the new wells.

5.26    The alternative approach of installing UV treatment at the 10 pump stations where the 16 wells that are unlikely to achieve secure status are located would cost in the order of $5 million. If this was a permanent solution, there would be 11 fewer well heads needing to be raised above ground which would save $2.8 million. The operation and maintenance costs of UV treatment for 10 pump stations is estimated to be $120,000 per year.

5.27    Therefore, the overall cost for making all below ground wells secure is very dependent on the solution chosen for the 16 wells that are unlikely to achieve secure status.

Cost estimates

5.28    The cost estimates are concept level and are accurate to ±30%. The main risks that may have an effect on the cost estimates are:

·   Design development and scope creep.

·   Site conditions during construction e.g. access, groundwater levels, soil conditions.

·   Cost escalation for supply of materials and labour.

·   Foreign exchange rate fluctuations.

·   Consent conditions and additional compliance costs.

·   Existing utility services infrastructure – power supply, telecommunications, water, and wastewater.

·   Replacement wells will need to be sited and designed according to reticulation network requirements.

·   Aquifer yields may be lower in deeper aquifers which may require more than 1 replacement well to achieve the same yield as those wells which are replaced.

Above ground wells

5.29    For both options, the remaining 25 above ground well heads will need to be signed off as secure by an expert in well head security before chlorination can cease at the pump stations concerned.

Other work required

5.30    Other works to meet the requirements for secure status for well heads under the DWSNZ would also be carried out for all options.  These are described in the Beca report in Attachment B. The options in this report focus only on the overall approach for each below ground well, with the options being raise the well head above ground (typically with the over-drilling method of grouting) or remediate the well head below ground (typically with the injection method of grouting).

Using ground source heating wells

5.31    It may be possible to use wells that have been recently drilled to extract water for ground source heating in the central city to replace some of the capacity currently provided by shallow wells. These have been drilled to the standard required for drinking water and are taking water from deep aquifers but are likely to be abandoned due to problems with discharging the water into the shallow Aquifer 1, such as increased springs on site. This includes two wells at the Metro Sports site. It may also be possible to use water that has passed through a heat exchanger at other sites (e.g. Central Library and Town Hall) rather than discharging all of the water to Aquifer 1.  However, the risks and technical issues of connecting to the network, and whether these sites could usefully supply water to the city would need to be considered. This reinforces the need to take a network-wide approach when considering the best way forward for the 16 wells that are unlikely to be signed off as secure.


 

6.   Option 1 - Raise well heads above ground where possible and review the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option involves raising 81 below ground well heads above ground and using the over-drilling method of grouting to form an annular seal around the well casing, replacing one well and reviewing the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained.

6.2       There are 16 shallow wells that take water from Aquifer 1 (the shallowest aquifer). While it would be possible to make the well head secure (DWSNZ Criterion 2 for bore water security), it is unlikely that it can be demonstrated that the wells are not subject to climatic or surface influences (DWSNZ Criterion 1 for bore water security), and the best approach for these wells and these pump stations is yet to be determined. This could be UV treatment of the water from each of the 10 affected pump stations, either permanently or until the wells can be replaced.

6.3       There are a total of 29 wells at these 10 pump stations (including the 16 shallow wells), and all but one of these has below ground well heads. Therefore, if UV treatment was installed permanently on these pump stations, the number of well heads needing to be raised would drop to 72.

6.4       Well 3 at the Auburn Pump Station is in the bottom of the suction tank and so the well head cannot be raised, so would need to be replaced by a new well.

Significance

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

6.6       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are important.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

6.8       All residents and most business in Christchurch, Lyttelton Harbour and Wainui are specifically affected by this option as they consume drinking water from Christchurch. Their views on the most appropriate method for remediating well heads have not been canvassed, but it is expected that they would like to see well head security repairs done to a high standard as quickly as possible, to reduce the time that temporary chlorination is required. There is unlikely to be opposition to UV treatment as there is no residual in the water supply.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation – the estimated cost of converting 81 well heads to above ground well heads and drilling a replacement well at Auburn Pump Station is $21.5 million.

6.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the maintenance costs of above ground well heads is yet to be determined, but will be less than for below ground well heads due to ease of access.

6.12    Funding source – the draft Long Term Plan (LTP) has no budget provision for this programme.  The LTP includes $34.1 million budget for the WS Headworks Well Renewals programme. This is generally used to fund replacement wells, but could also be used for well head security improvements. However, using $21.5 million of this budget for raising well heads above ground would mean that 23 fewer wells would be replaced over the next ten years. These are wells that are nearing the end of their useful life, are in poor condition or take water from Aquifer 1.

6.13    The overall budget for water supply in the draft LTP is very tight, with $319 million out of the total $495 million planned for water supply pipe renewals. The Council has stated that it wishes to seek an exemption from mandatory treatment if this is imposed by the government and it is likely that a very high standard of network infrastructure would be required in addition to a higher standard for well heads. This may include leakage at levels of 5% or less, compared to real water loss in 2015/16 of 11.7% (note these are different calculations so are not directly comparative, but give an indication). Therefore, reducing expenditure elsewhere in the water supply budget is not recommended as this would compromise the Council’s ability to seek an exemption from mandatory treatment.

6.14    Recommend to the Council that it reviews the overall capital programme in the Long Term Plan to identify funding sources to undertake the well head security improvements when the preferred approach and programme has been confirmed.

Legal Implications

6.15    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a risk that it will not be possible to deliver the well head security improvement programme within 12 months caused by the significant increase in scope and complexity of the work required, the limited number of contractors available to undertake the work and the need to continuously supply water to the city throughout the works.  This may result in chlorination being needed for longer than 12 months.

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

6.17.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include working on multiple fronts at the same time, streamlined procurement of design and physical works using the 3 Waters panels as much as possible.

6.17.3 Planning needs to take into account the network needs and demands.  There is an ability to manage some of the demand but to what extent still needs to be determined.

6.18    There is a risk that the costs could escalate due to the concept level of the designs and the reasons set out in paragraph 5.28.  This may result in insufficient budget to complete the work.

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

6.18.2 Planned treatment(s) include reviewing cost estimates at preliminary and detailed design stages and early contractor involvement where possible.

6.19    There is a risk that the programme of well head security improvements is delivered too quickly caused by a desire to cease temporary chlorination as soon as possible. This could result in poor quality work, increased costs and/or an overall solution that is not the best approach in the long term.

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

6.19.2 Planned treatment(s) include taking sufficient time to determine the best overall approach for each well and the water supply network as a whole, allowing realistic timeframes for design, tendering and physical works, allocating sufficient staff resources and developing a detailed programme of the overall work.

6.20    There is a risk that the government will impose mandatory treatment of all water supplies following the recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry. While it may be possible to obtain an exemption, it is likely that a very high standard of water supply infrastructure and risk management would be required. If an exemption cannot be obtained, this could result in any money spent on improving well heads being largely unnecessary, although it would still provide another barrier to contamination.

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

6.20.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include making submissions on government proposals following the recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry.

Implementation

6.21    Implementation dependencies - careful consideration of the water supply operational requirements will need to be taken into account, so that demand can be met throughout implementation, including firefighting flows. Consideration also needs to be given to seasonal demand. The peak demand during summer is so high that we may not be able to take any wells offline during the summer months to allow their well heads to be raised above ground. The alternative approach would be to impose water restrictions over the summer period (1 November - 31 March) to expedite the work on raising well heads.

6.22    Implementation timeframe – a detailed programme is yet to be developed due to the complexity of the overall solution.  However, our best estimate at this stage is that we could raise 15 - 20 well heads per year. This assumes water restrictions would be imposed in the summer period, as the wells must to be taken out of service while the work is undertaken. Staff are looking at options to fast track the delivery of solutions while ensuring the network meets the needs of the community. . If water restrictions were not imposed in the summer months, this could double the length of time for implementation.

6.23    Based on past experience, we can drill 3 – 5 wells per year. Therefore, it could take three to six years to drill 16 replacement wells. Staff are looking at acceleration options

6.24    The timeframe for UV treatment at 10 pump stations is unknown and staff are looking at the logistics of various options to fast track delivery.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides best protection from potential contamination from groundwater or stormwater.

·   Complies with recommendations of Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry.

·   Meets current and likely future Drinking-water Standards for New Zealand (DWSNZ) requirements.

·   Most likely option to achieve exemption from mandatory treatment.

·   Above ground well heads are easier to access and maintain – better health and safety.

6.26    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Could take significant time to fully implement.

·   Higher capital cost.

·   Not so important if mandatory treatment is introduced (but does provide an additional barrier to contamination).

7.   Option 2 – Make below ground well heads secure where possible and review the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained

Option Description

7.1       This option involves making 76 below ground well heads secure and using the injection method of grouting around the well casing, raising five well heads above ground and reviewing the approach for the 16 shallow wells where it is unlikely that secure groundwater status can be regained.

7.2       This only difference between this option and Option 1 is that 76 below ground well heads would be made secure rather than being raised above ground. 

7.3       There are five below ground well heads that Beca recommends are raised above ground. This is because access to the champers is difficult or because the chambers are in too poor a condition to remediate.

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are important.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

7.7       All residents and most business in Christchurch, Lyttelton Harbour and Wainui are specifically affected by this option as they consume drinking water from Christchurch. Their views on the most appropriate method for remediating well heads have not been canvassed, but it is expected that they would like to see well head security repairs done to a high standard as quickly as possible, to reduce the time that temporary chlorination is required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.9       Cost of Implementation – the estimated cost of making 76 below ground well heads secure, raising five well heads above ground is $10.5 million.

7.10    The cost of drilling 16 replacement deep wells or installing UV treatment at the 10 affected pump stations is the same as for Option 1 as set out in paragraphs 5.25- 5.27.

7.11    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – the maintenance costs of below ground well heads is yet to be determined but will be similar to current costs.

7.12    Funding source – the draft Long Term Plan (LTP) includes $34.1 million budget for the WS Headworks Well Renewals programme. This is generally used to fund replacement wells, but could also be used for well head security improvements. However, using $10.5 million of this budget for well head security improvements would mean that 12 fewer wells would be replaced over the next ten years. Please see paragraphs 6.13 - 6.14 on possible alternative sources of funding.

Legal Implications

7.13    There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

Risks and Mitigations

7.15    The same risks and mitigations as for Option 1, as set out in paragraphs 6.17 - 6.17, apply to Option 2. There are also additional risks, as set out below.

7.16    There is a risk that the government will prohibit below ground well heads following the recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry. This could result in any money spent on improving below ground well heads being largely unnecessary, although it would still provide another barrier to contamination.

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

7.16.2 Planned and current treatment(s) include making submissions on government proposals following the recommendations of the Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies - careful consideration of the water supply operational requirements will need to be taken into account, so that demand can be met throughout implementation, including firefighting flows. Consideration also needs to be given to seasonal demand.

7.18    Implementation timeframe – a detailed programme is yet to be developed due to the complexity of the overall solution.  However, our best estimate at this stage is that we could remediate 30 below ground well heads per year. Therefore, it could take 3 years to make 76 below ground well heads secure and raise five well heads above ground.

7.19    As for Option 1 it could take 3 – 6 years to drill 16 replacement wells or around 1 – 2 years to install UV treatment at the 10 affected pump stations. Staff are looking at options to truncate this programme

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Meets current DWSNZ requirements.

·   Lower capital cost.

·   Slightly faster to implement.

7.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not comply with recommendations of Havelock North Drinking Water Inquiry.

·   Unlikely to meet future DWSNZ requirements.

·   Unlikely to achieve exemption from mandatory treatment.

·   Well heads more difficult to access and maintain – poorer health and safety (confined spaces).

·   Not so important if mandatory treatment is introduced (but does provide an additional barrier).

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Removal of security status for Wainui - letter from Drinking Water Assessor - 19 March 2018

 

b 

Below Ground Wellheads Security Improvement Review (Beca, 20 March 2018) - Confidential

 

 

 

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

Bridget O'Brien - Team Leader Asset Planning

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

15.    An Accessible City: Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Town Hall

Reference:

18/370199

Presenter(s):

Stefan Jermy -  Project Manager, Transport

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received a deputation from Dirk De Lu on behalf of Spokes on this item.

2.         The Committee resolved the staff recommendations, and also made note that staff are working with the Town Hall to increase the number of available cycle stands.

3.         An updated Map - Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Proposed Scheme Design including dimensions has been attached (Attachment B).

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes staff will progress with the detailed design and tender prior to conclusion of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, utilising current budgets.

2.         Approve the scheme design and bus passenger shelter location as detailed in Attachment A, and the below resolutions all relating to the Kilmore Street project, noting that the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the scheme will be considered by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, as per paragraph 5.5 of this report.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

a.         Approve that all traffic controls including the Kilmore Street Give Way at the east approach left turn slip lane and traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

b.         Approve that the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be controlled by traffic signals (in accordance with the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, traffic island and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

d.         Approve that all traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

e.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

f.          Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

g.         Approve the lane marking changes, and any new kerb alignment, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

h.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

i.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

j.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

Existing Kilmore Street - Durham Street North to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

k.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Durham Street North and Victoria Street to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

l.          Approve the lane marking changes, any new kerb alignment, and traffic islands on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

m.       Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street as detailed on Attachment A. 

n.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

o.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

p.         Approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter beside the new westbound bus stop on Kilmore Street, located beside the Town Hall as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

q.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 73 metres be revoked.

New Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

r.          Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A.

s.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Durham Street North be one-way North to South from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A. 

t.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the East side of Durham Street North, from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly distance to its intersection with Chester Street West, as detailed on Attachment A.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Notes staff will progress with the detailed design and tender prior to conclusion of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, utilising current budgets.

2.         Approve the scheme design and bus passenger shelter location as detailed in Attachment A, and the below resolutions all relating to the Kilmore Street project, noting that the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the scheme have been considered and resolved by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, as per paragraph 5.5 of the report.

3.         Notes that staff are working with the Town Hall to increase the number of available cycle stands.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

a.         Approve that all traffic controls including the Kilmore Street Give Way at the east approach left turn slip lane and traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

b.         Approve that the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be controlled by traffic signals (in accordance with the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, traffic island and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

d.         Approve that all traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

e.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

 

Existing Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

f.          Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

g.         Approve the lane marking changes, and any new kerb alignment, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

h.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

i.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

j.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

Existing Kilmore Street - Durham Street North to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

k.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Durham Street North and Victoria Street to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

l.          Approve the lane marking changes, any new kerb alignment, and traffic islands on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

m.       Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street as detailed on Attachment A. 

n.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

o.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

p.         Approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter beside the new westbound bus stop on Kilmore Street, located beside the Town Hall as detailed on Attachment A.

 

 

Existing Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

q.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 73 metres be revoked.

New Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

r.          Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A.

s.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Durham Street North be one-way North to South from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A. 

t.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the East side of Durham Street North, from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly distance to its intersection with Chester Street West, as detailed on Attachment A.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

An Accessible City: Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Town Hall

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Proposed Scheme Design

2

b

Updated Map - Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Proposed Scheme Design

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

An Accessible City: Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Town Hall

Reference:

18/243611

Presenter(s):

Stefan Jermy, Project Manager, Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee on the outcome of community consultation for changes to Kilmore Street between Colombo and Durham Street North, and request they recommend to Council to approve the proposed plan and traffic controls as detailed in (Attachment A).

1.2       Note that the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the proposed plan will be considered by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee on 19 April 2018.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated following community consultation on An Accessible City Project for Kilmore Street and Durham Street North.

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 very small area affected within the Christchurch District and the low risk of implementing the scheme.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes staff will progress with the detailed design and tender prior to conclusion of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan, utilising current budgets.

2.         Approve the scheme design and bus passenger shelter location as detailed in Attachment A, and the below resolutions all relating to the Kilmore Street project, noting that the parking and stopping restrictions relating to the scheme will be considered by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee, as per paragraph 5.5 of this report.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

a.         Approve that all traffic controls including the Kilmore Street Give Way at the east approach left turn slip lane and traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Victoria Street / Durham Street North: Traffic Control

b.         Approve that the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North be controlled by traffic signals (in accordance with the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 as detailed on Attachment A.

c.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, traffic island and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street, Victoria Street and Durham Street North as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

d.         Approve that all traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street be revoked.

New Intersection - Kilmore Street / Colombo Street: Traffic Control

e.         Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes at the intersection of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

f.          Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Colombo Street to eastern Extent of Project: Traffic Controls

g.         Approve the lane marking changes, and any new kerb alignment, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres as detailed on Attachment A.

h.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A.

i.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

j.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Colombo Street, as detailed on Attachment A. 

Existing Kilmore Street - Durham Street North to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

k.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Durham Street North and Victoria Street to Colombo Street: Traffic Controls

l.          Approve the lane marking changes, any new kerb alignment, and traffic islands on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street as detailed on Attachment A.

m.       Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Kilmore Street be one way east to west from its intersection with Colombo Street to its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street as detailed on Attachment A. 

n.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the north side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

o.         Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only, be established on the south side of Kilmore Street, from Colombo Street to Durham street North, as detailed on Attachment A.

p.         Approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter beside the new westbound bus stop on Kilmore Street, located beside the Town Hall as detailed on Attachment A.

Existing Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

q.         Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 73 metres be revoked.

New Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Chester Street West: Traffic Control

r.          Approve the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes, and road surface changes on Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street, and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A.

s.         Approve that pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Durham Street North be one-way North to South from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to its intersection with Chester Street West as detailed on Attachment A. 

t.          Approve that pursuant to section 18 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of southbound cycles only, be established on the East side of Durham Street North, from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly distance to its intersection with Chester Street West, as detailed on Attachment A.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·     Level of Service: 10.4.3 Provide journey reliability on high frequency core services

4.2       The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and its transport chapter (An Accessible City) provides the strategic direction for the proposed changes. 

4.3       The proposal is compatible with potential future plans for the two-way conversion of Kilmore Street and Salisbury Street.

4.4       Completion of the works this year will avoid the need for further significant roading changes in the Kilmore Street following the re-opening of the Town Hall.

4.5       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Kilmore Street (Colombo – Durham) - Town Hall (preferred option).

·     Option 2 – Do nothing.

4.6       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Replaces kerb and channel on an alignment that supports possible future two-way conversion of Kilmore Street. Renews the asphalt road surface.

·     Installs an additional bus stop on the south side along with a bus shelter.

·     Provides the location for two new bus stops on the northern side in preparation for the possible future two-way conversion.

·     Provides painted on-road cycle lanes.

·     Installs a mobility park on the southern side near Colombo Street.

·     Provides for additional trees and landscaping.

·     Provides additional space for pedestrians at the intersection crossing point.

·     Installs a 30 km/h threshold gateway on Durham Street North to support the 30 km/h slow core.

·     Supports the completion of the Town Hall rebuild with renewed infrastructure and removes the need for any future work in front of the Town Hall.

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Loss of parking directly on this section of Kilmore Street, however this has been offset by the inclusion of the same quantity on Durham Street North.

 

5.   Context/Background

Extent of work

5.1       The work on this length of Kilmore Street has been identified to be undertaken to align with the completion of the reconstruction of the Town Hall. The Town Hall rebuild contract provides for the kerb and channel, and footpath on Kilmore Street outside the Town Hall to be reconstructed.  That scope of work is currently programmed for completion in July 2018.

5.2       The length of Kilmore Street covered by this report is between Colombo Street and Durham Street North.  It also includes a short section of Durham Street North, south of Kilmore Street, to provide for the 30 km/h threshold in Durham Street North.  This is detailed in Attachment A.

5.3       A decision of the Council on 22 February 2018, Ref: CNCL/2018/00024 was to proceed with the length of Kilmore Street between Colombo Street and Durham Street North, for delivery by the time the Town Hall rebuild is completed.

5.4       The potential two-way conversion of Salisbury and Kilmore Streets is a project planned to begin delivery in 2022.  Engagement on any potential solutions will take place prior to the construction being undertaken.

Parking and stopping restrictions

5.5       The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will be considering the following parking and stopping restrictions relating to the Kilmore Street projects as follows:

(1) An intersection of roadways 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 reconstruction.  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 Committees’ approval of resolutions as detailed on Attachment A.

 

Existing Kilmore Street - Durham Street North and Victoria Street to Colombo Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street to its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

New Kilmore Street - Durham Street North and Victoria Street to Colombo Street: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 96 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that a Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles Only) be installed and restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 96 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 110 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of five metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that a Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles only) be installed and restricted to a maximum period of five minutes  on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 115 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 129 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 17 metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that a Loading Zone (Goods Vehicles only) be installed and restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 146 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 12 metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 158 metres west of its intersection with Colombo Street, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 100 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that a bus stop be installed on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 100 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 114 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of five metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that a bus stop be installed on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 119 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kilmore Street and within any part of the slip lane, which is separated by a median from the south side Kilmore Street traffic lane outside the Town Hall entrance, commencing at a point 133 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 65 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 180 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4(1A) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction  to apply at any time and be located on the south side of Kilmore Street, commencing at point 198 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in a easterly direction for a distance of eight metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at a point 206 metres east of its intersection with Durham Street North and Victoria Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street. Note 2 applies.

Existing Kilmore Street - Colombo Street: Parking to Eastern Extent of Project: Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on Kilmore Street from its intersection with Colombo Street to a point 52 metres east of its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked. Note 1 applies.

New Kilmore Street - Colombo Street: Parking to Eastern Extent of Project: Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres. Note 2 applies

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Kilmore Street commencing at its intersection with Colombo Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 52 metres. Note 2 applies

Existing Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Southern Extent of project: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 74 metres be revoked. Note 1 applies.

 

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 73 metres be revoked. Note 1 applies.

New Durham Street North – Kilmore Street and Victoria Street to Southern Extent of Project: Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 42 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Meters, (including Pay and Display machines or any approved means of payment on the west side of on Durham Street North commencing at point 42 metres south of its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 5:00pm, and Friday to Sunday 9:00 am to 8:30pm Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Durham Street North commencing at a point 48 metres south of its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Meters, (including Pay and Display machines or any approved means of payment on the west side of on Durham Street North commencing at point 62 metres south of its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 12 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 5:00pm, and Friday to Sunday 9:00 am to 8:30pm Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Durham Street North from its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 42 metres. Note 2 applies.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Meters, (including Pay and Display machines or any approved means of payment on the east side of on Durham Street North commencing at point 42 metres south of its intersection with Kilmore Street and Victoria Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 38 metres as detailed on Attachment A.  This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 5:00pm, and Friday to Sunday 9:00 am to 8:30pm Note 2 applies.

 


 

6.   Option 1 – Kilmore Street (Colombo to Durham) - Town Hall (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Implementation of proposed street layout changes to Kilmore Street in support of the completion of the Town Hall rebuild.

6.2       This proposed solution supports possible future two-way conversion of Kilmore Street should it be required.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance were exceeded because of the heightened interest in this section of Kilmore Street, which includes the Christchurch Town Hall, a key venue and landmark building.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       During the development of a concept plan for Kilmore Street (from Colombo Street to Durham Street North) discussions were held with key stakeholders including representatives of Vbase, which manages Christchurch Town Hall operations, Fino Hotel and Suites, and the developers of the Peterborough Quarter on the former Convention Centre site.

6.7       Consultation was undertaken from 28 February until 21 March. Leaflets were delivered to 400 businesses and residences in the vicinity of this block of Kilmore Street, and sent to 180 absentee owners, and libraries and service centres in the Christchurch City area. In addition, 200 key stakeholders received emails about the project.

6.8       Of the 44 responses received, 18 (40%) supported the scheme outlined in the consultation plan, 21 (48%) generally supported the plan but had some concerns, four (9%) did not support the plan, and one submitter did not state a view.

6.9       Key issues arising from the consultation plan included the shared path for pedestrians and cyclists on the south side of the Kilmore Street block near the Durham Street North intersection, cycling facilities, and the proposed removal of the left turn lane from Kilmore Street onto Durham Street North. Removal of parking on the western side of Durham Street North to provide a gateway to the 30 km/h zone was also a concern, with 43 people signing a petition opposing the parking loss.

6.10    Two submitters, the Foundation for the Blind and Earthquake Disability Leadership Group, opposed the shared path saying footpaths, especially for those with impairments must be logical, usable and safe. Two other submitters referred to safety issues, while two submitters supported the shared path.

6.11    As a result of feedback, the shared path in front of 70 Kilmore Street has been removed from the plan for approval because of potential conflict with pedestrians. The southern footpath is expected to be heavily used by pedestrians when events are occurring at the Town Hall. 

6.12    Cycling advocacy group Spokes was one of six submitters critical of cycling facilities. Of particular concern was the width of the cycle lanes. Submitters have been advised that in the plan for approval Kilmore Street cycle lanes are 1.8 metres wide. Cycle lanes at bus stops (1.5 metres) are narrower in order to accommodate the width of buses. As buses have no doorways exiting into the cycle lane a safer environment exists than that provided against car parking spaces. Two submitters wanted separated cycle lanes while two did not support marked cycle lanes.

6.13    Removal of the free left turn from Kilmore Street onto Durham Street North was supported by Ōtākaro Limited, Environment Canterbury, the Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB), the Blind Foundation and the Earthquake Disability Leadership Group, but opposed by two respondents.

6.14    Environment Canterbury also submitted that the coach stop, to be available from 6pm to 6am in front of the Town Hall, should be located at the front rather than the rear of the two stops to facilitate bus turnover. The plan for approval has been changed to reflect this.

6.15    The proposed bus passenger shelter is located beside the westbound bus stop. The shelter will be provided, operated and maintained by Adshel NZ. Staff have engaged with VBase, who will operate the Town Hall, in addition to other departments within the Council (Heritage, Landscape, Urban Design, and Planning). No objection has been received to the proposed shelter type or location. 

6.16    Three submitters commented on the drop-off zone in front of the Town Hall entrance, with the CDHB calling for effective circulation to prevent queuing vehicles from backing up in traffic lanes and over the cycleway.  The Earthquake Leadership Disability Group added that there was a need for a permanent dedicated drop-off zone in front of the Town Hall for disabled people, the elderly and those arriving by taxi or Uber. They were advised that the drop-off area would be managed by Vbase, operator of the Town Hall. If the drop-off area in front of the Town Hall was unavailable, three evening P5 parking spaces have been provided for drop-offs on Kilmore Street to the east of Colombo Street.

6.17    The availability of mobility parking near the entrance to the Town Hall was highlighted by one submitter. He was advised that a mobility park was provided near the entrance and two others would be provided on Colombo Street immediately south of Kilmore Street. The drop-off facilities may also assist those with impairments.

6.18    Following discussions with Fino Hotel about loading and access, a loading zone has been provided at No. 87 Kilmore Street. The other two loading zones on the north side of the block are proposed to convert to bus stops if the two-way conversion proceeds.

6.19    The project team has reviewed the number of future car parks on the western side of Durham Street North near the Kilmore Street intersection following strong concerns expressed on behalf of a café, supported by a 43-name petition. 

6.20    The project team noted that in the consultation plan six parking spaces were added on the east side of Durham Street and five existing spaces were removed on the western side to make way for the gateway to the 30 km/h zone. The review concluded that no further spaces could be added on the western side. The threshold north of the café was needed to signal entry to the 30 km/h zone and Spark has a consent to install a cell phone tower in this location.

6.21    One submitter criticised the number of additional trees in the consultation plan while another said he was delighted at the replacement lime trees in front of the Town Hall. These were a reminder of the historical connection to the Limes Hospital, which was formerly located on the Town Hall site.

6.22    Three submitters were concerned at the proposed delay in implementing the change from one-way to two-way traffic. They were advised that the draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP), which provides funding for construction of the remainder of Kilmore Street and Salisbury Street in 2021/22, is out for consultation until 13 April 2018.

6.23    Four submitters expressed concern about disruption during construction and the need to stage works to prevent impacts on businesses and traffic. They were advised that the work on Kilmore Street, between Colombo Street and Durham Street North, was expected to precede construction on Victoria Street but follow the completion of works on Durham Street North.

6.24    The following changes have been made to the scheme plan to take into account consultation feedback:

1.      Road markings have been updated to minimise the rework in if the two-way conversion of Kilmore Street is undertaken. This includes:

·     Cycle lanes on Kilmore Street west of the intersection of Kilmore Street / Colombo Street have been moved next to the new kerbs.

·     Cycle lane green surfacing has been amended slightly.

 

2.      Loading zone and bus stops:

·     A loading zone has been installed outside Fino Hotel at No.87 Kilmore Street.

·     A proposed new tree outside the hotel has been removed.

·     Entry tapers and exit tapers of bus stops on both sides of Kilmore Street have been modified.

 

3.      30 km/h threshold:

·     Length of colour surfacing has been extended from 3.5 metres to 10 metres.

·     Two proposed trees at the gateway have been removed for installation of new gateway 30 km/h speed signs.

·     Location of a proposed cell tower in the gateway landscaping area has been noted.

 

4.      Footpath:

·     The proposed 5 metres wide shared path from Durham Street North to the west of the Town Hall has been changed to footpath for pedestrians only. Relevant cycle ramps and road marking have been removed.

 

5.      Parking:

·     120-minute time restrictions have been specified for six new parking spaces on the east side of Durham Street North.

·     180-minute time restrictions have been specified for the mobility parking space on the south side of Kilmore Street, west of Kilmore Street and Colombo Street intersection.

 


 

6.      Other:

·     A proposed new tree on the south side of Kilmore Street west of the bus stop has been removed. This is to avoid any potential conflicts between the tree and heavy vehicles turning into the driveway.

·     Locations of proposed cycle racks have been slightly changed.

·     Size of proposed bus shelter has been enlarged.

·     Tactile pavers have been slightly changed.

6.25    Submitters were sent information on how to access a summary of the consultation, the table of submissions and project responses, and the plan for approval. They were also advised of the decision-making process and how to seek speaking rights for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting if they wished to do so.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.27    Cost of Implementation – approx. $2.0 million.  The cost estimate for this section of Kilmore Street, including the Town Hall street frontage is based on a preliminary cost estimate. The development of costings have been undertaken following the programme report to Council (resolution number CNCL/2018/00024) and the publication is the draft 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

6.28    Further design work is required to finalise construction scope and quantitates.  The estimate has currently realised the following key contributors to the $2.0 million; full road reconstruction inclusive of gravel layers under the asphalt along with the requirement to lower the road, two intersection signal upgrades, drainage upgrade and full kerb and channel replacement.

6.29    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Costs are likely to reduce due to the renewal of assets, any costs that are incurred will be covered under the Road Maintenance Contract.

6.30    Funding source – This project is funded through the Council’s Capital Programme of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.  The draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan proposes to retain $1.0 million in FY19 and shift the bulk of the funding to 2024 and 2025.

6.31    It is proposed that in finalising the Long Term Plan funding for AAC Salisbury Street and Kilmore Street (18325) is adjusted to $2.0 million to allow for the construction of this project in FY19 and that the remaining funding be realigned to allow construction to start in 2022. It is expected that these changes will be offset within the draft LTP programme.

 

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

6.33    The risks associated with this scheme are considered to be low.

6.34    Key risk, consequences and mitigations are:

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Public criticism

 

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

 

Proactive and early communications and engagement

Completion after Town Hall opens

Disruption to Town Hall operations 

Joint delivery planning with Town Hall contractor to ensure key milestones are aligned

 

Implementation

6.35    Implementation dependencies - Town Hall street frontage construction works to be completed.

6.36    Implementation timeframe – July 2018 for commencement.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.37    The advantages of this option include:

·     Replaces kerb and channel on an alignment that supports possible future two-way conversion of Kilmore Street. Renews the asphalt road surface.

·     Install an additional bus stop on the south side along with a bus shelter.

·     Provides the location for two new bus stops on the northern side in preparation for the possible future two-way conversion.

·     Provides painted on road cycle lanes.

·     Installs a mobility park on the southern side near Colombo Street.

·     Provides for additional trees and landscaping.

·     Provides additional space for pedestrians at the intersection crossing point.

·     Installs a 30km/h threshold on Durham Street North to support the 30km slow core.

·     Supports the completion of the Town Hall rebuild with renewed infrastructure and removes the need for any future work in front of the Town Hall.

6.38    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Loss of parking directly on this section of Kilmore St, however this has been offset by the inclusion of the same quantity on Durham Street North.


 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do nothing and retain the current street layout until the two-way conversion of Salisbury and Kilmore Streets is undertaken in financial year 2022.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 2 of this report as future plans still provide for the two-way conversion as per the transport chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option was not consulted on.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.5.1   Inconsistency – Yes.

7.5.2   Reason for inconsistency - will be in conflict to resolution ref: CNCL/2018/00024, made on the 22 February 2018 to proceed with the length of Kilmore Street between Colombo Street and Durham Street North, for delivery by the time the Town Hall rebuild is completed.

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – There is no cost associated with this option.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Any costs that are incurred will be covered under the Road Maintenance Contract.

7.8       Funding source – The funding identified in the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan will need adjustment to allow construction to be undertaken in 2022.  This will be undertaken as part of the finalisation of the Long Term Plan.  Should this not occur construction will be programmed to align with the current funding profile.

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    The risks associated with the do nothing option are considered to be low.

7.11    Key risk, consequences and mitigations are:

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Public criticism of not delivering this project efficiently with the completion of the Town Hall rebuild, and hence having to cause further disruption if the two-way change is implemented

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

 

Implement the Preferred Option

 

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies – Nil.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – Nil.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Deferred spending of the allocated one million dollars until the two-way conversion of Kilmore Street and Salisbury Streets takes place.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Major road works and disruption after the Town Hall is open and operating.

·   Cost inefficiencies as some of the work completed by the Town Hall contractor will have to be removed and redone.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Kilmore Street (Colombo - Durham) - Proposed Scheme Design

 

 

 

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

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

16.    Hereford Street, Cambridge Terrace, Balfour Terrace & East Frame-Traffic Controls.

Reference:

18/370270

Presenter(s):

Tim Cheeseborough – Senior Transport Planner

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee resolved the staff recommendations without change.

 

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

Explanatory notes relating to Recommendations

1          The Christchurch City Council Bylaw 2017 came into force on 01 March 2018. Under section 34 of the 2017 Bylaw (Revocations and Savings), any resolutions and amendments, including the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice under Section 27 of the CER Act, remain in force until the Council resolves otherwise under the 2017 Bylaw. Accordingly, where required, a recommendation will seek to revoke the relevant section of the December 2014 Gazette notice.

2          The resolutions at the Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace intersection align with the principles of those of March 2010, which ensured the appropriate functionality of Cashel Street (City Mall) for servicing vehicles and tram travel through these streets.

3          Throughout the design phase for each of the projects in question, Ōtākaro has consulted with key and affected stakeholders.  Full public consultation on each of the proposed designs and the associated proposed traffic resolutions was then undertaken in January-February 2017, following Local Government Act requirements. The proposed traffic resolutions were publicly notified and made available on the Ōtākaro and Council websites. Details of the consultation over each set of resolutions are contained in the appended Ōtākaro Limited letter to Council (Attachment J).

4

That the Council approves the roadway layouts and traffic controls relating to the following Recovery plan projects as detailed in Attachments A B,C,D,E,F,G,H & I (with the consultation details contained in Attachment J), and notes that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee has considered and resolved the parking restrictions relating to the following Recovery plan projects:

·    Hereford Street at the Oxford Terrace intersection and river bridge

·    Cambridge Terrace, from Manchester Street and extending in a westerly and north westerly direction to Kilmore Street and via a shared pathway to Colombo Street

·    Balfour Terrace adjacent to the Metropolitan Sports Facility;

·    East Frame roadways, Shared Zones and Shared Paths.

Hereford Street

Existing Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace Intersection

1.         Approve that all intersection traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace be revoked.

New Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace Intersection

2.         Approve that the intersection of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace be controlled by traffic signals in accordance the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 as detailed on Attachment H.

3.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the west approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace.

4.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the right turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the east approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace.

5.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) and (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the east approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (d) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day, on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

6.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) and (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the right turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the west approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (d) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

7.         Approve pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that all motorised vehicles be prohibited from travelling straight ahead (southbound) into Oxford Terrace, from the Oxford Terrace north approach, at its intersection with Hereford Street, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (e) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day, on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

e.         Trams.

Existing Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Traffic Controls.

8.         Approve that all traffic controls on Hereford Street from its intersection with Oxford Terrace, to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Traffic Controls.

9.         Approve the lane marking changes and new kerb alignment on Hereford Street, from its intersection with Oxford Terrace, to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace as detailed on Attachment H

10.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Oxford Terrace, as detailed on Attachment H.

11.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Attachment H.

Cambridge Terrace

Existing Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Colombo Street-Traffic Control

12.       Approve that all traffic controls including the speed limit on Cambridge Terrace, from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly, then westerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

New Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Kilmore Street-Traffic Control

13.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

14.       Approve pursuant to Section 20 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed in Attachment G be declared a Shared Zone.

15.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

16.       Approve pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Cambridge Terrace be one way east to west and southeast to northwest, except for cycles, from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

17.       Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the right turn movement for all vehicles be prohibited from the Cambridge Terrace southeast approach at its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

18.       Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the Kilmore Street east approach at its intersection with Cambridge Terrace, as detailed on Attachment G.

19.       Approve pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that all motorised vehicles, except for service and emergency vehicles, be prohibited from using Cambridge Terrace, from its intersection with Manchester street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

20.       Approve pursuant to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running east / west between Cambridge Terrace and Colombo Street, to the south of Kilmore Street as detailed in Attachment G be declared a Shared Path.

Balfour Terrace

Existing Balfour Terrace- Traffic Controls

21.       Approve that all traffic controls on Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street, to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street be revoked.

New Balfour Terrace – Traffic Control

22.       Approve the new kerb alignment, road markings and signage on Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street, as detailed on Attachment I.

 

 

Cashel Street

Existing Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Traffic Control

23.       Approve that all traffic controls on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Madras Street, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

New Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Traffic Control

24.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment F.

25.       Approve that pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 30 km /h on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment F. 

Hereford Street

Existing Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with          Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

26.       Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Hereford Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street - Traffic Control.

27.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Hereford Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, as detailed on Attachment E.

28.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Hereford Street, from Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment E.

29.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Hereford Street, from Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment E.

Worcester Street  

Existing Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square- Traffic Control.

30.       Approve that all traffic controls on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Latimer Square, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

New Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square- Traffic Control.

31.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Latimer Square, as detailed on Attachment C.

32.       Approve that pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 30 km /h on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square, as detailed on Attachment C. 

Gloucester Street   

Existing Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

33.       Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, be revoked.

New Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

34.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, as detailed on Attachment C.

35.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment C.

36.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment C.

Huanui Lane/ Shared Paths

New Huanui Lane- Lichfield Street to Cashel Street- Traffic Control.

37.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, as detailed in Attachment F be declared a Shared Zone.

38.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, as detailed on Attachment F.

New Shared Path- Lichfield Street to Cashel Street.

39.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Lichfield Street and Cashel Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment F be declared a Shared Path.

New Huanui Lane- Cashel Street to Hereford Street- Traffic Control.

40.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, as detailed in Attachment E be declared a Shared Zone.

 

 

41.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, as detailed on Attachment E.

New Shared Path- Cashel Street to Hereford Street.

42.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Cashel Street and Hereford Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment E be declared a Shared Path.

New Huanui Lane- Hereford Street to Worcester Street-Traffic Control.

43.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, as detailed in Attachment D be declared a Shared Zone.

44.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, as detailed on Attachment D.

New Shared Path- Hereford Street to Worcester Street.

45.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Hereford Street and Worcester Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment D be declared a Shared Path.

New Huanui Lane- Worcester Street to Gloucester Street-Traffic Control.

46.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, as detailed in Attachment C be declared a Shared Zone.

47.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, as detailed on Attachment C.

New Shared Path- Worcester Street to Gloucester Street.

48.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Worcester Street and Gloucester Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment C be declared a Shared Path.

       New Shared Paths- Gloucester Street to Armagh Street.

49.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw     2017, that the paths running generally north /south between Gloucester Street and Armagh Street, as detailed in Attachment B be declared Shared Paths.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Hereford Street, Cambridge Terrace, Balfour Terrace & East Frame-Traffic Controls.

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Overview

2

b

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 1

2

c

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 2

2

d

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 3

2

e

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 4

2

f

East Frame Traffic Resolution Sheet 5

2

g

Cambridge Terrace Traffic Resolutions

2

h

Hereford Street Bridge Traffic Resolutions

2

i

Balfour Terrace Traffic Resolutions

2

j

Engagement and Consultation Letter from Otakaro

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Hereford Street, Cambridge Terrace, Balfour Terrace & East Frame-Traffic Controls.

Reference:

18/220346

Presenter(s):

Tim Cheesebrough - Senior Transport Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend that the Council approves the roadway layouts and traffic controls relating to the following Christchurch Central Recovery Plan projects being undertaken by Ōtākaro Limited (Ōtākaro), and as detailed in the attached plans for:

·    Hereford Street at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and the adjacent river bridge;

·    Cambridge Terrace, from Manchester Street to Kilmore Street (including also a shared path connection to Colombo Street);

·    Balfour Terrace at the proposed Metropolitan Sports Facility;

·    East frame roadways, Shared Zones and Shared Paths.

1.2       Note: All parking and stopping restrictions will be considered by the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee on 19 April 2018.

Origin of Report

1.1       The above projects are being delivered by Ōtākaro. Ōtākaro seeks decisions from Council to give legal effect to new and revised traffic controls and parking restrictions for each of the named schemes in order to accompany the completion of the physical works in each case. Adopted resolutions would be expected to take effect subsequent to the completion of each set of physical works.

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 comparing the factors relating to the decisions 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 (and detailed in the appended letter – Attachment J - to Council from Ōtākaro), reflect that assessment.

 

3.   Explanatory notes relating to Recommendations

3.1       The Christchurch City Council Bylaw 2017 came into force on 01 March 2018. Under section 34     of the 2017 Bylaw (Revocations and Savings), any resolutions and amendments, including the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice under Section 27 of the CER Act, remain in force until the Council resolves otherwise under the 2017 Bylaw. Accordingly, where required, a recommendation will seek to revoke the relevant section of the December 2014 Gazette notice.

3.2       The resolutions at the Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace intersection align with the principles of those of March 2010, which ensured the appropriate functionality of Cashel Street (City Mall) for servicing vehicles and tram travel through these streets.

3.3       Throughout the design phase for each of the projects in question, Ōtākaro has consulted with key and affected stakeholders.  Full public consultation on each of the proposed designs and the associated proposed traffic resolutions was then undertaken in January-February 2017, following Local Government Act requirements. The proposed traffic resolutions were publicly notified and made available on the Ōtākaro and Council websites. Details of the consultation over each set of resolutions are contained in the appended Ōtākaro Limited letter to Council (Attachment J).

4.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council approves the roadway layouts and traffic controls relating to the following Recovery plan projects as detailed in Attachments A B,C,D,E,F,G,H & I (with the consultation details contained in Attachment J), and notes that the Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will consider the parking restrictions relating to the following Recovery plan projects:

·    Hereford Street at the Oxford Terrace intersection and river bridge

·    Cambridge Terrace, from Manchester Street and extending in a westerly and north westerly direction to Kilmore Street and via a shared pathway to Colombo Street

·    Balfour Terrace adjacent to the Metropolitan Sports Facility;

·    East Frame roadways, Shared Zones and Shared Paths.

          Hereford Street

Existing Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace Intersection

1.         Approve that all intersection traffic controls including traffic signals at the intersection of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace be revoked.

New Hereford Street /Oxford Terrace Intersection

2.         Approve that the intersection of Hereford Street and Oxford Terrace be controlled by traffic signals in accordance the Land Transport Act - Traffic Control Devices Rule: 2004 as detailed on Attachment H.

3.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the west approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace.

4.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the right turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the east approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace.

5.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) and (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the east approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (d) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day, on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

6.         Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) and (2) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the right turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the west approach of Hereford Street into Oxford Terrace, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (d) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

7.         Approve pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that all motorised vehicles be prohibited from travelling straight ahead (southbound) into Oxford Terrace, from the Oxford Terrace north approach, at its intersection with Hereford Street, except for the authorised vehicles listed as (a) to (e) below that require access to the following areas:

            within Oxford Terrace between Hereford Street and Cashel Street (City Mall), within Cashel Street (City Mall), between Oxford Terrace and Colombo Street, and within Oxford Terrace between Cashel Street (City Mall) and Lichfield Street.

a.         Goods Service Vehicles for the purposes of loading and unloading at any time other than between 10:00am and 4:00pm and 11:00pm and 5:00am the following day, on each day.

b.         Trade and other vehicles (included those operated by service authorities) of any class at specified times if authorised to do so by the Council officer who holds the position of Head of Transport at that time.

c.         Street cleaning and rubbish collection vehicles operated by the Christchurch City Council or its nominated contractor, at any time.

d.         Emergency vehicles.

e.         Trams.

Existing Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Traffic Controls.

8.         Approve that all traffic controls on Hereford Street from its intersection with Oxford Terrace, to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

         New Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Traffic Controls.

9.         Approve the lane marking changes and new kerb alignment on Hereford Street, from its intersection with Oxford Terrace, to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace as detailed on Attachment H

10.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Hereford Street, commencing at a point 35 metres east of its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Oxford Terrace, as detailed on Attachment H.

11.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Hereford Street, commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres, as detailed on Attachment H.

Cambridge Terrace

Existing Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Colombo Street-Traffic Control

12.       Approve that all traffic controls including the speed limit on Cambridge Terrace, from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly, then westerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

New Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Kilmore Street-Traffic Control

13.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

14.       Approve pursuant to Section 20 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed in Attachment G be declared a Shared Zone.

15.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Cambridge Terrace from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

16.       Approve pursuant to section 16 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Cambridge Terrace be one way east to west and southeast to northwest, except for cycles, from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

17.       Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the right turn movement for all vehicles be prohibited from the Cambridge Terrace southeast approach at its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

18.       Approve pursuant to section 17 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the left turn movement for all motorised vehicles be prohibited from the Kilmore Street east approach at its intersection with Cambridge Terrace, as detailed on Attachment G.

19.       Approve pursuant to section 19 (1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that all motorised vehicles, except for service and emergency vehicles, be prohibited from using Cambridge Terrace, from its intersection with Manchester street to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

20.       Approve pursuant to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running east / west between Cambridge Terrace and Colombo Street, to the south of Kilmore Street as detailed in Attachment G be declared a Shared Path.

        Balfour Terrace

        Existing Balfour Terrace- Traffic Controls

21.       Approve that all traffic controls on Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street, to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street be revoked.

  New Balfour Terrace – Traffic Control

22.       Approve the new kerb alignment, road markings and signage on Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street, as detailed on Attachment I.

         Cashel Street

         Existing Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Traffic Control

23.       Approve that all traffic controls on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Madras Street, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

         New Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Traffic Control

24.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment F.

25.       Approve that pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 30 km /h on Cashel Street from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street, as detailed on Attachment F.  

         Hereford Street

Existing Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with          Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

26.       Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Hereford Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street - Traffic Control.

27.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Hereford Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, as detailed on Attachment E.

28.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Hereford Street, from Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment E.

29.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Hereford Street, from Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment E.

 

         Worcester Street   

         Existing Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square- Traffic Control.

30.       Approve that all traffic controls on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Latimer Square, including any amendments to the 2008 Traffic and Parking Bylaw, pertaining to this section of the road specified in the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice, be revoked.

         New Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square- Traffic Control.

31.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to its intersection with Latimer Square, as detailed on Attachment C.

32.       Approve that pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 30 km /h on Worcester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square, as detailed on Attachment C.  

         Gloucester Street   

Existing Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

33.       Approve that all traffic controls except the speed limit, on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, be revoked.

New Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street- Traffic Control.

34.       Approve the new kerb alignment and road markings on Gloucester Street from its intersection with Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, as detailed on Attachment C.

35.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 a special vehicle lane for the use of eastbound cycles only be established on the north side of Gloucester Street, from Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment C.

36.       Approve pursuant to section 18 (1) and (2) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, a special vehicle lane for the use of westbound cycles only be established on the south side of Gloucester Street, from Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street as detailed on Attachment C.

        Huanui Lane/ Shared Paths

        New Huanui Lane- Lichfield Street to Cashel Street- Traffic Control.

37.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, as detailed in Attachment F be declared a Shared Zone.

38.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, as detailed on Attachment F.

New Shared Path- Lichfield Street to Cashel Street.

39.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Lichfield Street and Cashel Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment F be declared a Shared Path.

 

 

New Huanui Lane- Cashel Street to Hereford Street- Traffic Control.

40.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, as detailed in Attachment E be declared a Shared Zone.

41.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, as detailed on Attachment E.

        New Shared Path- Cashel Street to Hereford Street.

42.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Cashel Street and Hereford Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment E be declared a Shared Path.

New Huanui Lane- Hereford Street to Worcester Street-Traffic Control.

43.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, as detailed in Attachment D be declared a Shared Zone.

44.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, as detailed on Attachment D.

 New Shared Path- Hereford Street to Worcester Street.

45.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Hereford Street and Worcester Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment D be declared a Shared Path.

New Huanui Lane- Worcester Street to Gloucester Street-Traffic Control.

46.       Approve pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that Huanui Lane from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, as detailed in Attachment C be declared a Shared Zone.

47.       Approve pursuant to Section 27(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, set the speed limit at 10 km /h on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, as detailed on Attachment C.

New Shared Path- Worcester Street to Gloucester Street.

48.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the path running north /south between Worcester Street and Gloucester Street, to the east of Huanui Lane as detailed in Attachment C be declared a Shared Path.

       New Shared Paths- Gloucester Street to Armagh Street.

49.       Approve pursuant to Section 21(1) (a) of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw     2017, that the paths running generally north /south between Gloucester Street and Armagh Street, as detailed in Attachment B be declared Shared Paths.

 

5.   Key Points

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

5.1.1   Activity: Road Operations

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

 

6.   Context/Background

6.1       For the Avon River Precinct - Hereford Street Bridge Cambridge Terrace works:

6.1.1   Hereford Street Bridge is an important heritage feature within the new Avon River Precinct.  The aim of the proposed traffic resolutions is to improve the function and aesthetic of the Bridge through widening of the public footpath, provision of a cycle lane, and moving the existing carparks and taxi rank. The works are consistent with adjacent Oxford and Cambridge Terrace works and are designed to accord with the Recovery Plan and the detailed streetscape principles of the Streets and Spaces Design Guide (of 2015).

6.1.2   Cambridge Terrace between Colombo and Manchester Streets forms part of the cycle network being developed in the Central City under the Recovery Plan.  It is central to completing the cycle route that will run along the Avon River connecting the hospital, western part of the central city, new Retail Precinct, Convention Centre, East Frame, Margaret Mahy Playground and eastern part of the central city.  The proposed traffic resolutions are for this to be a Shared Zone / Path upon physical completion, so that pedestrians and cyclists are prioritised, whilst vehicle access be maintained for authorised vehicles when necessary. 

6.2       For the new East Frame Public Realm:

6.2.1   A new public park (Rauora Park) and laneway (Huanui Lane) and a new shared path have been constructed by Ōtākaro Limited between Armagh Street and Lichfield Street through the new East Frame.   This new public realm connects the Margaret Mahy Family   Playground and new residential development with the Innovation Precinct, to the south.   It also provides new greenspace and amenity for local residents and the public.  Huanui Lane provides access to the new residential developments and Rauora Park itself.  It is, however, designed to be a Shared Zone where vehicle speeds are low, and pedestrians and cyclists prioritised to support the residential and park nature of the area.

6.3       For the Metro Sports Facility:

6.3.1   The proposed Metro Sports facility affects access arrangements for remaining properties accessed from Balfour Terrace to the immediate west of the new Metro Sports Facility. Ōtākaro wrote to and met with the adjacent property owners in July 2016 to go through the proposed changes to the road layout of Balfour Terrace.  All property owners were supportive and each subsequently gave written agreement to the proposed changes, which the proposed traffic resolutions reflect. 

6.4       The Parking Restrictions Subcommittee will be considering the following parking restrictions relating to the projects:

6.4.1   Explanatory Notes:

·   Where Shared Zones intersect with a roadway, changes to parking restrictions typically reflect the need to restrict parking in order to allow access to the new Shared Zones.

·   Where possible and where existing parking resolutions are present, whole block lengths are revoked in each case and reinstated with appropriate changes and /or existing unaffected parking. This removes anticipated difficulties with enforcement when a block length is segmented into multiple resolutions, approved on different dates.

·   The eastern sections of Hereford Street and Gloucester Street in the area of the East Frame have been omitted from this report as there are multiple issues with vehicle entrances, and parking management. These areas of kerbside parking management will be submitted to the Parking Restrictions sub-committee when all issues and ongoing developments are known.

·   Council staff are adopting a new methodology for multiple parking restrictions in close proximity to each other. This is based on a new methodology of Auckland Transport and under the assessment of Council’s legal advisors.

6.4.2   Resolutions:

Existing Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north and south sides of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Oxford Terrace to Cambridge Terrace- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and extending in a westerly direction to its intersection with Cambridge Terrace.

Existing Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Colombo Street-Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on both sides of Cambridge Terrace         commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in a westerly and north westerly direction to its intersection with Colombo Street be revoked.

New Cambridge Terrace- Manchester Street to Kilmore Street-Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on any part of Cambridge Terrace, from its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in a westerly, then north westerly direction to its intersection with Kilmore Street, as detailed on Attachment G.

Existing Balfour Terrace – Parking and Stopping Restrictions

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north and south sides of Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street, to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street be revoked.

New Balfour Terrace – Parking and stopping Restrictions

·   Approve all parking and stopping restrictions on Balfour Terrace from its intersection with Stewart Street, to a point 77.5 metres east of its intersection with Stewart Street, as detailed on Attachment I.

East Frame

Lichfield Street

Existing Lichfield Street- Manchester Street to 177.5 metres east of Manchester Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Lichfield Street          commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 177.5 metres be revoked.

 New Lichfield Street- Manchester Street to Madras Street -Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance 9.5 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Machines, (including Pay by Plate or any approved means of payment) on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at point 9.5 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 39 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 6:00pm, and apply Friday to Sunday 9:00am to 8:30pm

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at a point 48.5 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 19.5 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment) on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at point 68 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 28 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 6:00pm, and apply Friday to Sunday 9:00am to 8:30pm

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at a point 96 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of seven metres. Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes and controlled by Parking Meters, (including Pay by Plate machines or any approved means of payment) on the north side of Lichfield Street commencing at point 103 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 74.5 metres. This restriction is to apply Monday to Thursday 9:00am to 6:00pm, and apply Friday to Sunday 9:00am to 8:30pm.

Existing Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north and south sides of Cashel Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street, be revoked.

 New Cashel Street, Manchester Street to Madras Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Cashel Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Cashel Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Madras Street.

Existing Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street -Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north and south sides of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, be revoked.

New Hereford Street- Manchester Street to a point 128 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance 128 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Hereford Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance 128 metres.

Existing Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square, be revoked.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square, be revoked.

New Worcester Street- Manchester Street to Latimer Square-Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance 110 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 120 minutes on the north side of Worcester Street commencing at point 110 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 37 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 147 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Worcester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance 146 metres.

·   Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes on the south side of Worcester Street commencing at point 146 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres. This restriction is to apply at any time.

·   Approve That the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on the south side of Worcester Street commencing at a point 154 metres east of its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction to its intersection with Latimer Square.

Existing Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street-           Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that all parking and stopping restrictions on the north and south sides of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 99 metres, be revoked.

New Gloucester Street- Manchester Street to a point 99 metres east of Manchester Street -Parking      and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 99 metres.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Gloucester Street commencing at its intersection with Manchester Street, and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 99 metres.

New Huanui Lane- Lichfield Street to Cashel Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on any part of Huanui Lane, from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, except for the specified parking areas, as detailed on Attachment F.

·   Approve all parking restrictions, other than the no stopping areas on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Lichfield Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Cashel Street, as detailed on Attachment F.

New Huanui Lane- Cashel Street to Hereford Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on any part of Huanui Lane, from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, except for the specified parking areas, as detailed on Attachment E.

·   Approve all parking restrictions, other than the no stopping areas on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Cashel Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Hereford Street, as detailed on Attachment E.

New Huanui Lane- Hereford Street to Worcester Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on any part of Huanui Lane, from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, except for the specified parking areas, as detailed on Attachment D.

·   Approve all parking restrictions, other than the no stopping areas on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Hereford Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Worcester Street, as detailed on Attachment D.

New Huanui Lane- Worcester Street to Gloucester Street- Parking and Stopping Restrictions.

·   Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on any part of Huanui Lane, from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, except for the specified parking areas, as detailed on Attachment C.

·   Approve all parking restrictions, other than the no stopping areas on Huanui Lane from its intersection with Worcester Street and extending in a northerly direction to its intersection with Gloucester Street, as detailed on Attachment C.

 

 

 


 

7.   Option 1 – Approve new traffic controls and parking restrictions on various central city streets, shared paths and shared zones (preferred)

Option Description

7.1       New Traffic Controls and Parking Restrictions are proposed for named streets, shared paths and shared zones in order to support Implementation of variously: the Avon River Precinct, East Frame and proposed Metro Sports Facility. All these works are being delivered by Ōtākaro in support of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and its transport chapter, An Accessible City; (preferred option)

7.2       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  to recommend that Council approves the roadway layouts and traffic controls relating to the following Christchurch Central Recovery Plan projects being undertaken by Ōtākaro, and as detailed in the attached plans for:

·    Hereford Street at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and the adjacent river bridge;

·    Cambridge Terrace, from Manchester Street to Kilmore Street (including also a shared path connection to Colombo Street);

·    Balfour Terrace at the proposed Metropolitan Sports Facility;

·    East frame roadways, Shared Zones and Shared Paths.

7.3       Ōtākaro seeks these decisions from Council and its delegated Committees in order to give legal effect to new and revised traffic controls and parking restrictions for each of the aforementioned schemes, in order to accompany the completion of the physical works in each case. Adopted resolutions would be expected to take effect subsequent to the substantial completion of each set of physical works.

Significance

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

7.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been met by Ōtākaro Limited, as detailed for each of the individual schemes and areas in Attachment J to this report –.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.6       Delivery of the Avon River Precinct, which the proposals for the Hereford Street Bridge, its intersection with Oxford Terrace, and the separate proposals for Cambridge Terrace are all features of, is a significant project for Ngai Tuahuriri and Ngai Tahu.   The River and surrounding landscape is highly valued, and was an area of diverse habitats rich in natural resources.

7.7       Additionally, the creation of the new East Frame residential development and the creation of a new public park (Rauora Park) are matters Ōtākaro has collaborated with Ngai Tuahuriri (through the Matapopore Trust) over the design and implementation of.

7.8       The designs for streets, shared paths, shared streets and open spaces in each of the areas detailed in this report seek to be consistent with the principles of the Streets and Spaces Design Guide for the central city. This was prepared by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) in partnership Ngai Tuahuriri (through the Matapopore Trust) and the City Council, and was adopted by Council in 2015.

Community Views and Preferences

7.9       Throughout the development of designs for each of the projects in question, Ōtākaro has consulted with key and affected stakeholders.  Public consultation on each of the proposed designs and the associated proposed traffic resolutions was then undertaken by Ōtākaro in January-February 2017, following Local Government Act requirements. The proposed traffic resolutions were publicly notified and made available on the Ōtākaro and Council websites. Details of the consultation over each set of resolutions are contained in the appended Ōtākaro letter to Council (Attachment J).

7.10    In addition, following consultation with City Councillors and staff over these proposals, Ōtākaro have sought to provide for additional mobility parking in a number of the streetscapes, which is detailed in the attached plans.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.11    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies – and especially the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, its transport chapter An Accessible City and the adopted Streets and Spaces Design Guide for the central city. The detailed proposals are each consistent with the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017

Financial Implications 7.12  Cost of Implementation – All costs associated with this proposal will be met by Ōtākaro.

7.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered by Council’s operational maintenance budgets

Legal Implications 7.14         Council recently adopted the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, which came into effect on 1 March 2018. Under section 34 of the 2017 Bylaw (Revocations and Savings), any resolutions and amendments, including the 11 December 2014 Gazette Notice under Section 27 of the CERA Act, remain in force until the Council resolves otherwise under the 2017 Bylaw. Accordingly, where required, a recommendation will seek to revoke the relevant section of the December 2014 Gazette notice.

7.15    Council has not delegated its powers to approve special vehicle lanes, traffic signals, shared pathways or shared zone streets. 

Risks and Mitigations

7.16    There are no significant identified risks with these projects, all of which have been led by Ōtākaro and are consistent with the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

Implementation

7.17    Implementation dependencies – Project led and delivered by Ōtākaro. 

7.18    Implementation timeframe(s) – Construction dependent on Ōtākaro programmed timeframes (some works are in fact substantially complete). Adopted resolutions would be expected to take effect subsequent to the substantial completion of each set of physical works.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports the implementation of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and is consistent with the central city Streets and Spaces Design Guide;

·   Enables appropriate enforcement and optimal operational traffic control and parking restrictions to exist consistent with Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw (2017), on the completion of physical works on the aforementioned streets, shared paths and shared zones. 

7.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

8.   Option 2 – Do not approve new traffic controls and parking restrictions on various central city streets, shared paths and shared zones

Option Description

8.1       Do not approve the traffic controls and parking restrictions variously on:

·    Hereford Street at its intersection with Oxford Terrace and the adjacent river bridge;

·    Cambridge Terrace, from Manchester Street to Kilmore Street (including also a shared path connection to Colombo Street);

·    Balfour Terrace at the proposed Metropolitan Sports Facility;

·    East frame roadways, Shared Zones and Shared Paths.

8.2       Existing traffic controls and parking restrictions would remain in force on existing streets, which would support now out of date land uses. No legally enforceable traffic controls and parking restrictions would exist on new public streets and shared paths created as part of these sets of works being undertaken by Ōtākaro.

Significance

8.3       The level of significance of this option is low, consistent with section 2 of this report Engagement requirements for this level of significance is low and is consent with section 2 of this report.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.4     Refer to sections 7.6 to 7.8 of this report.

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Refer to sections 7.9 and 7.10

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

8.6.1   Inconsistency – This option is inconsistent with the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

8.7       Reason for inconsistency – Ōtākaro are in the process of delivering the works featuring in this report, as consistent with important anchor projects of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. In the absence of approval of new traffic controls and parking restrictions on each of the streets, shared paths and shared streets, existing traffic controls and parking restrictions would remain in force on existing streets detailed in this report, supporting now out of date land uses. Additionally, no legally enforceable traffic controls and parking restrictions would exist on new public streets and shared paths and shared zone streets created as part of these sets of works being undertaken by Ōtākaro.

Financial Implications 8.8          Cost of Implementation – If this option is adopted, it is unclear who would be responsible for determining an alternative solution for the appropriate enforcement of traffic controls and parking restrictions in each area - and funding their implementation.  Council has not allocated funding for this purpose under its Long Term Plan. 

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Covered by Councils operational maintenance budgets

Legal Implications

8.10    See 7.14 to 7.16 above

Risks and Mitigations 8.11         See sections 8.7 and 8.8 above

Implementation

8.12    See section 8.7 above

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   There are no advantages associated with this option

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   In the absence of approval of new traffic controls and parking restrictions on each of the streets, shared paths and shared zone streets detailed in this report, existing traffic controls and parking restrictions would remain in force on existing streets supporting now out of date land uses.

·   No legally enforceable traffic controls and parking restrictions would exist on new public streets and shared paths and shared zone streets created as part of these sets of works being undertaken by Ōtākaro.

·   It is unclear who would be responsible for determining an alternative solution for the appropriate enforcement of traffic controls and parking restrictions in each area - and funding their implementation. 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Overview

 

b 

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 1

 

c 

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 2

 

d 

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 3

 

e 

East Frame Traffic Resolutions Sheet 4

 

f 

East Frame Traffic Resolution Sheet 5

 

g 

Cambridge Terrace Traffic Resolutions

 

h 

Hereford Street Bridge Traffic Resolutions

 

i 

Balfour Terrace Traffic Resolutions

 

j 

Engagement and Consultation Letter from Otakaro

 

 

 

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

Tim Cheesebrough - Senior Transport Planner

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Approved By

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

17.    Update on Northwest Christchurch Drinking Water Standards NZ Upgrade Programme

Reference:

18/370304

Presenter(s):

John Mackie – Head of Three Waters and Waste

 

 

 

1.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.    Notes the information provided in this report.

2.    Notes the previous Council resolution CNCL/2016/00420, that states the following:

3.    Approve the revised timeframes for the completion of several sites that are part of the Northwest Christchurch well drilling programme, provided in this report.

 

2.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.    Notes the information provided in this report.

2.    Notes the previous Council resolution CNCL/2016/00420, that states the following:

3.    Approve the revised timeframes for the completion of several sites that are part of the Northwest Christchurch well drilling programme, provided in this report.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Update on Northwest Christchurch Drinking Water Standards NZ Upgrade Programme

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade Project - Update 23 March 2018

2

b

Report 22 September 2016 - Compliance with DWSNZ - Northwest Upgrade

2

c

Report 7 June 2017 - Update on Compliance with DWSNZ - Northwest Christchurch

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Update on Northwest Christchurch Drinking Water Standards NZ Upgrade Programme

Reference:

18/280690

Presenter(s):

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to be updated on the fast tracking of the Northwest Christchurch well drilling programme which commenced in September 2016.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated and provides:

1.2.1   An update on the Northwest Christchurch well drilling programme.

1.2.2   Reasons for the changes to the original timeframes.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by completing the Significance and Engagement Policy Worksheet.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.    Notes the information provided in this report.

2.    Notes the previous Council resolution CNCL/2016/00420, that states the following:

3.    Approve the revised timeframes for the completion of several sites that are part of the Northwest Christchurch well drilling programme, provided in this report.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       On 22 September 2016 Council resolved in Council Resolution CNCL/2016/00420 that the drinking water supply well improvement programme for the Northwest of Christchurch be brought forward for target completion in 2017, and that financial provision is made to match the accelerated delivery programme.

4.2       Fast-tracking of the Northwest Drinking Water Standards NZ Upgrade (DWSNZ) project commenced in September 2016 by means of redistributing contractor and financial resources.

4.3       On 7 June 2017 staff provided an update to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee which included information on revised timeframes which moved the overall completion date for the Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade project to December 2019.

4.4       This report provides an update on a site by site basis which shows that despite several changes to the completion timeframes to individual projects the overall completion date has not changed. Details can be found in Sections 6 and 7 and Attachment A.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade which involves the drilling of new deep wells to achieve secure groundwater status and compliance with DWSNZ for the Northwest Christchurch Community (listed as NORO12 in the Ministry of Health register of community drinking water supplies), commenced in the 2012/13 financial year and was originally to be completed by 30 June 2018.

5.2       The 2016 water contamination incident in Havelock North raised concerns nationwide about public health risks and whether water suppliers in fact take all practicable steps to comply with the DWSNZ as required by section 69V of the Health Act 1956.

5.3       An options report was prepared by staff and Council resolved on 22 September 2016 that the drinking water supply well improvement programme for the Northwest of Christchurch be brought forward for target completion in 2017, and that financial provision is made to match the accelerated delivery programme.

5.4       Fast-tracking of the Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade project commenced in September 2016 by means of redistributing contractor and financial resources.

5.5       On 7 June 2017 staff provided an update to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee which included information on revised timeframes which moved the overall completion date for the Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade project to December 2019 but which advised that all remaining non-secure shallow wells in the Northwest zone were turned off but would need to remain on standby for health & safety reasons until all the new deep wells were fully commissioned and operational.

 

6.   Progress Made

6.1       Good progress was made over the last 18 months with all works completed at Auburn, Burnside, Crosbie and Farrington pump stations.

6.2       The new pump station at Gardiners Rd which will replace the shallow well at Harewood is on track to be completed by June 2018. Wellhead security assessments were carried out on both new wells to ensure that the wellheads of the existing shallow wells meet Drinking Water Standards for NZ requirements.

6.3       Extensive remediation work was completed at the Grampian pump station suction tank due to E. coli transgressions which delayed the completion of the well drilling.

6.4       Land purchase is almost complete for the new Wrights pump station.

6.5       Land acquisition and community consultation is underway for the Jeffreys pump station suction tank which is required to be built first before the new deep wells (which currently feature temporary connections to the network) can be permanently connected.

6.6       A status summary table can be found in Attachment A.

 

7.   Work Required to Complete the Northwest Christchurch DWSNZ Upgrade

7.1       Jeffreys pump station: several design variations had to be prepared due to highly engaged local residents expressing concerns about the proposed location of the suction tank. Consultation is currently underway to address the residents’ concerns. The estimated completion date is now December 2019.

7.2       Wrights pump station: land purchase will be completed in mid-April, well drilling tender for the drilling of 2 deep wells will be let in mid-April. The estimated completion date is October 2019.

7.3       Grampian pump station: headworks construction to be completed as part of a combined contract together with Avonhead.

7.4       Avonhead pump station: headworks construction to be completed as part of a combined contract together with Grampian. This includes the replacement of the existing AC main on site.

7.5       If the above projects continue on their critical paths then the entire Northwest DWSNZ upgrade project will be completed by December 2019.

7.6       The Drinking Water Assessor and Medical Officer of Health are being kept updated by regular meetings and progress reports.

7.7       Council staff have also commenced discussions with the Drinking Water Assessor to confirm the steps required to re-establish the DWSNZ groundwater security criteria for all water supply zones.

7.8       It should be noted that the process of re-gaining groundwater security is a separate process which needs to be completed before water supply risk grading can be undertaken. The process involves a variety of assessment methods such as groundwater age dating, bacteriological sampling, groundwater modelling, an extensive wellhead improvement / repair and well replacement programme followed up by wellhead security assessments.

7.9       It is also important to note that there is no continued risk from shallow wells because all shallow wells are isolated and turned off. Should the use of a shallow well be required at one of the remaining 3 sites due to a fire then the shallow well will only be started up with chlorination as temporary treatment.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

Northwest DWSNZ Upgrade Project - Update 23 March 2018

 

b 

Report 22 September 2016 - Compliance with DWSNZ - Northwest Upgrade

 

c 

Report 7 June 2017 - Update on Compliance with DWSNZ - Northwest Christchurch

 

 

 

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

Daniela Murugesh - Asset Engineer

Approved By

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 11 April 2018

 

18.    Southshore South New Brighton Temporary Floodplain Management Update

Reference:

18/393901

Presenter(s):

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

 

 

 

1.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

1.         The Committee received a deputation from Kim Money (Community Board Chairperson) and Tim Sintes (Community Board Deputy Chairperson) on behalf of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board on this item.

2.         Councillor East and Livingstone joined the table for this item’s discussion.

3.         The Committee resolved the staff recommendations and requested a Memorandum from staff on the progress of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy, in time for the Council meeting of 26 April 2018 where this Part A will be considered.

4.         The Committee also recommended that the Council request for staff to communicate in person with residents to advise them of the final decision.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Adopt option 1 which will progress the extension of the Avon River stopbanks for 185m within the immediate vicinity of Bridge Street but defer the short term bund between this and the Jetty that was previously approved.

2.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Southshore and South New Brighton Short Term Floodplain Management Works.

3.         Request that the deferred works be considered within the context of the South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

 

3.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee:

1.         Request a Memo on the progress of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy, in time for the 26 April Council meeting where the Part A will be considered.

 


 

 

4.  Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment recommend That the Council:

1.         Adopt option 1 which will progress the extension of the Avon River stopbanks for 185m within the immediate vicinity of Bridge Street but defer the short term bund between this and the Jetty that was previously approved.

2.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Southshore and South New Brighton Short Term Floodplain Management Works.

3.         Request that the deferred works be considered within the context of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

4.         Request that staff communicate in person with the residents to advise them of this resolution.

 

Secretarial note:  An error in the staff report has been noted, the sentence within paragraph 4.3 should read as below (correcting the recorded level): 

This event was the highest ever recorded at Bridge Street at a level of 11.081 m Christchurch Drainage Datum (CDD).”

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Southshore South New Brighton Temporary Floodplain Management Update

2

 

No.

Title

Page

a

South New Brighton 50 year Tidal Flood Map

2

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

Southshore South New Brighton Temporary Floodplain Management Update

Reference:

18/259602

Presenter(s):

Tom Parsons, Surface Water Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to allow the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to consider new information that has been developed through the detailed design process for the South New Brighton Short Term Floodplain Management project and to recommend to Council a preferred approach to temporary flood management through Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park, north of the Jetty.

1.2       This report revisits the earlier Council resolution on flood management in this area as passed on 10 October 2017 (CNCL/2017/00290).  The reason for revisiting the earlier recommendation is that subsequent investigations into flood risk have identified lower risk than previously reported.  This report does not seek to revisit the discussion on stabilisation works to the emergency bund south of the Jetty (i.e. within Jellicoe Marsh and along the Southshore estuary edge).

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is staff generated.  Two reports were received by Council in September and October 2017 on the topic of Southshore Floodplain Management Temporary Options which included proposed works within South New Brighton Park north of the Jetty.  Council resolved to progress the stabilisation of the Council constructed emergency bund through Jellicoe Marsh and along Southshore and to construct a new short term, temporary bund from Bridge Street to the Jetty in Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park.    

1.4       Preliminary design of the works has now been undertaken.  This has provided more detail on potential costs and developed a greater understanding of areas at risk of flooding.

1.5       In response to queries from Councillors in chambers during the October 2017 report item it was promised that a subsequent report would be brought to Council if further analysis of the proposed works showed considerably lower flood risk or higher cost.  This has now been shown to be the case and this report details the findings, and seeks reconsideration of the original decision.

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 small number of people directly affected by the decision and the financial impact of the options.  There is a high level of interest in long and short term floodplain management within the Southshore and South New Brighton communities and the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

2.1.2   The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the assessment and has been limited to briefing with the local community board.

 

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Adopt option 1 which will progress the extension of the Avon River stopbanks for 185m within the immediate vicinity of Bridge Street but defer the short term bund between this and the Jetty that was previously approved.

2.         Return any surplus funds to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme that are not required to deliver the reduced Southshore and South New Brighton Short Term Floodplain Management Works.

3.         Request that the deferred works be considered within the context of the South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection and Control Works

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

4.2       In the last 12 months there have been five of the highest ten water levels events recorded at Bridge Street; where records have been kept for over 21 years.  Including these events in the statistical analysis results in higher water levels for a given chance of occurrence in any year, or otherwise stated, a given extreme water level is now expected more frequently than previously assessed.  This updated analysis is considered more robust as it samples a greater duration of record during which more of the natural variability of the system has been observed.

4.3       The updated 1/50 Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event estuarine water level has been used within the hydraulic model of the area.  The results of this model indicates only one house potentially at risk of overfloor flooding in an extreme tidal event but approximately 70 houses at risk of under floor flooding.  The level of risk is lower than reported earlier, as the updated modelling accounts for the volume of water that can overtop the estuary edge during an event and also for slowing of the water due to surface roughness.  The earlier reports commented that the number of houses at risk was likely to be overstated within those reports.

4.3       These hydraulic effects were observed during the extreme estuary water level event on the 2 February 2018.  This event was the highest ever recorded at Bridge Street at a level of 11.02 m Christchurch Drainage Datum (CDD).  There was surface water ponding in Seafield Place during this event but this was local stormwater ponding in the street to a level of approximately 10.9 m CDD.  Residents noted that the estuary did not overtop the properties along Seafield Place.

4.4       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Reprioritise the works from Seafield Place to the Jetty (preferred option).  This option retains the extension of the Avon stopbanks in the immediate vicinity of Bridge Street.  The re-prioritised works would be progressed if the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy for the area identified them as a preferred option

·     Option 2 – Continue with the original proposal. Progress with works as per Council resolution of 10 October 2017 and construct bunding South of Bridge St extending to the jetty.

·     Option 3 – Do nothing immediately.  This option would defer all works within Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park, including the Avon Stopbank extension works.

4.5       All options will require ongoing monitoring of the estuary edge.

4.6       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Reduced capital costs that can be applied to other higher priority Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) projects.

·     Less disruption within Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park.

·     Reduced impact on flora and fauna (less tree removals).

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

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Risk remains of overfloor flooding of potentially one house and underfloor flooding of an estimated 70 homes in South New Brighton in a predicted 1/50 AEP estuary event.

·     An inconsistent treatment of flood risk for all properties along Brighton Spit.

·     An alteration to the Council resolution of 10 October 2017 (CNCL/2017/00290).

·     Greater cost than the Do Nothing Immediately Option.

 

5.   Context/Background

Recent storm event statistics

5.1       The AEP of recent extreme water levels have been reassessed.  The analysis has provided an AEP of 1/39 for the 2 February 2018 event and an AEP of 1/16 for the 21 July 2017 event.

5.2       A door knock was undertaken in Seafield Place following the 2 February 18 event and photos were provided from near high tide during the event (Figure 1).  It appears that the properties on Seafield Place were not inundated to any significant degree by tidal flooding during the event, however some road ponding occurred.  This is likely due to the inability of the stormwater network to discharge by gravity as a result of elevated estuary water levels.  This ponding was not reported to have entered any private properties.

Figure 1 Seafield Place taken approximately 8am on 2 February 2018.  Top of kerb level surveyed post event at 10.89m.

5.3       The water level recorded at Bridge Street is approximately 100 mm above the level of the back of the Seafield Place properties.  The absence of estuarine flooding of these properties during the event might be attributed to energy dissipation from the presence of natural vegetation between the estuary edge and the properties or local hydraulic or wind effects.

Earlier Reporting

5.4       On 10 October 2017 Council approved the extension of the proposed short term bunding through Bridge Reserve and the northern part of South New Brighton Park.  The works extended from Bridge Street to the Jetty on the alignment consulted on as part of the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan 2014.  Resolution CNCL/2017/00290 from 10 October is as follow:

‘1.           Approve the identified extensions of the bund from Bridge St to the South Brighton jetty as a short term, temporary intervention to reduce flooding risks south of Bridge Street on the estuary side of the Brighton Spit. 

2.            Defer consideration of the extension to the bund proposed from the yacht club to Jellicoe Marsh boardwalk, to await further advice once the revised coastal hazards assessment report has been received and consideration has been given to the regeneration strategy for the area.

3.            Request that staff engage with Environment Canterbury to clarify roles and responsibilities in this coastal environmental and funding options, noting that the timeframe of this report did not allow staff to fully explore these issues and report back to Council at the earliest opportunity. ’

 

5.5       The resolution provided approval to proceed with short term works with a life of approximately 20 years to provide adequate time for regeneration planning to be undertaken.  The areas approved included approximately 185m of bunding immediately South of Bridge Street (figure 2).

5.6       Council resolved to defer consideration of the extension of the proposed bund from the Yacht Club to the Jellicoe Salt Marsh Boardwalk until further coastal hazard assessments and regeneration planning was undertaken.  Estuary edge erosion management works as requested by the Coastal Burwood Community Board are outside the scope of this project.  The options as presented to Council are outlined in the Council report of 10 October 2017.

Emergency Works Approved August 17Approved October 17Deferred in October 17

Figure 2 Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park Proposed Bunding as Approved by Council

5.7       The recommendation from staff to proceed with the northern works was made based on preliminary GIS analysis.  Since that time, preliminary design and detailed hydraulic modelling has been undertaken which shows that the risk to properties South of Bridge St is significantly lower than initially expected (a risk identified within the October 2017 Council report).  A map of the 1/50 AEP model results based on 2018 estuary water level assessment is shown in Attachment A.

5.8       In addition to the earlier reports, work continues on the development of a Regeneration Strategy for South New Brighton and Southshore. 

Detailed Hydraulic Modelling

5.9       Hydraulic modelling of the updated 1/50 AEP estuarine water level has been undertaken.  This modelling has been used in conjunction with the best available floor level information to show only one floor potentially at risk of flooding.  Approximately 70 homes have been estimated at risk of underfloor flooding in an extreme storm event.

5.10    During the Council meeting of 10 October 17, staff indicated that if any significant change in risk or costs became apparent during the project, staff would provide Council an opportunity to consider the new information.

5.11    Once Council takes ownership of the Residential Red Zone at Southshore and progressed with the Regeneration planning, the height of the bunding through the red zone could be reconsidered based on the revised estuary water level return periods.  

Southern Works – Stabilisation of Emergency Works

5.12    Detailed design and consenting for stabilisation of emergency works are underway.  Subject to consenting construction is planned for FY19.  Construction estimates for the project exceed the concept estimates agreed by Council in August 2017.  The scope of the project has been reduced to manage this.   Current cost estimates construction of these works is $920,000 and total project costs estimated at $1.65 M including emergency works, design and consenting.   


 

6.   Option 1 – Reprioritise Seafield Place Bund (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This option would defer the construction of the works in the vicinity of Seafield Place but continue with the stopbank extension works in the vicinity of Bridge Street (Figure 3).  As per the rest of the Avon River stopbanks, the works in the vicinity of Bridge Street are not intended to manage groundwater seepage beneath the stopbanks and or be resilient in future earthquakes, on the basis that emergency response works could readily be implemented in this area following a future earthquake.

6.2       The re-prioritised works would be progressed if the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy for the area identified them as a preferred option.  The development of a draft Regeneration Strategy is planned for completion later this calendar year.

Proposed to continueProposed for deferral 

Figure 3 Preferred Option 1

6.3       This option would result in an area of land through Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park without a bund.  Areas to the north and south would include bund or a stopbank.  The hydraulic modelling of this option has shown that the absence of a feature in this location does not result in significantly elevated levels of flood risk, when compared against other areas in the city.

6.4       Long term the risk will increase with rising sea levels.  The future construction of a bund in this area will be considered as part of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy.

6.5       Funding from deferral of these works will be reallocated within the project to fund the Avon River stopbank extension and July 2017 emergency works.  Following this there will be a minor return of funding to the Land Drainage Recovery Programme.       

Significance

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

6.7       An engagement plan for the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy is currently being developed.  This engagement may record the views and preferences of the community regarding this option.

6.8       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted the earlier reports.  Consultation with the community may be required to inform resource consent applications for the proposed works to the south (noting that resource consents have already been secured for the Bridge Street stopbank extension).

6.9       Early discussions with the Avon Heathcote Estuary Ihutai Trust and the Estuary Association have been undertaken.  The groups were not asked for formal feedback, in lieu, of consenting processes. 

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.10    This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu and their culture and traditions.  A cultural impact assessment has been undertaken to support a resource consent for the temporary floodplain management works.  This assessment identifies the high significance of the area and the need for cultural monitoring during any earthworks.

Community Views and Preferences

6.11    The effect on park users is reduced with this option due to the reduced footprint of the works.   Their views were sought during preparation and approval processes for the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan that included flood management works ‘if required’, and a diverse range of values and views were presented.  The plans outlined the policy and concept of flood management requirements in the area.  A hearings panel and the Board approved the Management Plan and the Development Plan.

6.12    Recent deputations have been made to the Board from the local tennis and yachting clubs as well as the operators of the camping ground relating to flood risk and estuary edge management in the area south of the Jetty.  These deputations raised concerns about the impacts of tidal flooding on the character and functionality of the park as well as impacts specific to their individual uses (e.g. flooding of existing or future buildings).  There have also been media reports on tidal flood risk and the local impacts in South New Brighton Park. It is likely that the community would favour the works proceeding north of the Jetty and there may be opposition to this option (being to reprioritise works north of the Jetty) being pursued.

6.13    A seminar with the Coastal Burwood Community Board was held on 4 April 2018. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.14    This option is largely consistent with Council's Plans and Policies, and Community Outcomes, including the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan. 

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – The current budget for the earlier approved works is $2,130,000.  The preliminary design has provided the basis for a re-estimation of the total project costs of $2,800,000 plus/-25%. This increase in estimated total project cost is due to the inclusion of the Avon River stopbank extension and July 2017 emergency works. With deferral of the northern works a $345,000 shortfall in the southern works budget will be funded along with the Avon stopbank extension estimated at $300,000 which was not originally budgeted for.  Any surplus funding will be returned to the LDRP for reallocation.   

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Maintenance costs for this option are limited to the maintenance of the Avon River stopbank extension including mowing and any repairs required to the structure. No additional maintenance costs are expected as a result of deferring the works.

6.17    Funding source – Funding for the Avon stopbank extension will be sought from the LDRP return of funds for the northern works.

Legal Implications

6.18    As outlined in Council’s Standing Order 19.6, alteration of the Council resolution (CNCL/20017/00289) of 10 October 2017 is sought by this report. 

6.19    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

6.20    Deferral of works would remove the need to apply for resource consent for this section as outlined in the Council report of October 2017.

Risks and Mitigations

6.21    There are a number of risks associated with delaying these works from both engineering and social standpoints.

6.22    There will be a risk of flooding of streets, properties and potentially, homes, in extreme storm events.

6.22.1 Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the estuary edge and hydrometric network will be required to manage flood and erosion risks.  Response plans are already in place and will need to be continued.

6.22.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the existing topography (as shown by recent hydraulic modelling).

6.23    There is a risk that long term planning is not resolved (e.g. plans are not agreed or funding is not available) within the near term that can be used to inform future decisions.

6.23.1 Treatment: Future reports can reprioritise the temporary works in the absence of a long term plan.

6.23.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the current planning being undertaken as part of the Regeneration Strategy.

Implementation

6.24    Implementation dependencies - There are no dependencies with finalising detailed design and consenting work when works are reinitiated.  Resource consents have already been secured for the stopbank extension.  Detailed design and consenting for the remaining northern works is on hold. 

6.25    Implementation timeframe – Delivery of the project will be dependent on the determination of the resource consent level of notification for the southern works, it is currently envisaged to deliver all the works within one construction contract.  It is expected that the project can be completed next financial year if resource consents for the southern works are obtained without delays.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.26    The advantages of this option include:

Reduced capital costs that can be applied to other higher priority Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) projects.

·   Less disruption within Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park.

·   Reduced impact on flora and fauna (less tree removals).

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

6.27    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Risk remains of overfloor flooding of potentially one house and underfloor flooding of an estimated 70 homes in South New Brighton in a predicted 1/50 AEP estuary event.

·   An inconsistent treatment of flood risk for properties along Brighton Spit.

·   An alteration to the Council resolution of 10 October 2017 (CNCL/2017/00290).

·   Greater cost than the Do Nothing Immediately Option.


 

7.   Option 2 – Continue with the Original Proposal

Option Description

7.1       This option was described in detail in the 10 October 2017 Council report Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options Feedback.  That report described:

7.1.1   …construction of a bund north of the boardwalk up to Bridge Street, where it would join with the temporary stopbank currently in the design phase.  The alignment of the bund will be set back from the estuary edge as indicated in the South New Brighton Reserves Development Plan.  This alignment is consistent with Option 1 in the Southshore Floodplain Management Short Term Options report (24 August 2017) … This option would see the emergency bund span low points in the existing topography within South New Brighton Park and Bridge Reserve.

7.2       Progressing this short term bund would offer a uniform approach to tidal flood risk that would be consistent with upstream areas of the Ōtākaro / Avon River but would be managing a low level of risk (as described above).  Approximately 70 houses would benefit from this option by reduced risk of underfloor flooding in an extreme event along with one house identified as potentially at risk of overfloor flooding.

7.3       The total project budget for this option has been estimated at approximately $1.1 million including the Avon River Stopbank extension.  The confidence in the cost estimates will increase as the design progresses. This estimate excludes the work south of the Jetty.

Option 2 – Works to continue 

Figure 4 Option 2

Significance

7.4       The level of significance of this option is low, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

7.5       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted the predecessors to this report.  Consultation with the community may be required to inform resource consent applications for the proposed works.

7.6       Access to the local yacht club will be impacted during the construction of the works.  Early engagement with the yacht club has indicated a need to coordinate the proposed works and their own club construction works.  Long term access would be maintained by ramping the access over the bund.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.7       This option does involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.  A cultural impact assessment has been undertaken to support a resource consent for the temporary floodplain management works.  This assessment identifies the high significance of the area and the need for cultural monitoring during any earthworks.

Community Views and Preferences

7.8       Park users are specifically affected by this option.  Their views were sought during preparation and approval processes for the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan and a diverse range of values and views were presented.  The plans outlined the policy and concept of flood management requirements in the area. A hearings panel and the Board approved the Management Plan and the Development Plan.

7.9       Recent deputations have been made to the Board from the local tennis and yachting clubs as well as the operators of the camping ground relating to flood risk and estuary edge management in the area south of the Jetty.  These deputations raised concerns about the impacts of tidal flooding on the character and functionality of the park as well as impacts specific to their individual uses (e.g. flooding of existing or future buildings).  There have also been media reports on tidal flood risk and the local impacts in South New Brighton Park. It is likely that the community would favour the works proceeding north of the Jetty.

7.10    A seminar with the Coastal Burwood Community Board was held on 4 April 2018. 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.11    This option is largely consistent with Council's Plans and Policies, and Community Outcomes, including the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan and Development Plan.  This option may be inconsistent in part with some policies in the Christchurch District Plan.  These do not require amendment as the option will be assessed against the provisions of the plan through the resource consent process under the Resource Management Act.

Financial Implications

7.12    Cost of Implementation – The current budget for all the earlier approved works is $2,130,000.  The preliminary design has provided the basis for a re-estimation of the total project costs of $2,800,000 plus/-25%. This increase in estimated total project cost is due to the inclusion of the Avon River stopbank extension and July 2017 emergency works.  This has been off-set by a value assessment that has reduced the scope of the project.  If option 2 is pursued then the additional funding will be sourced through a bring-back from the Land Drainage Recovery Programme funds from FY23.  

7.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The on-going maintenance costs of this option will be calculated through the detailed design process and are expected to focus on maintenance of landscaping.

7.14    Funding source – Budget has been allocated through the LDRP.  At present a minor shortfall is forecast within the project but is similar to contingencies. 

Legal Implications

7.15    As outlined in the October 2017 Council report (17/9704489) resource consent for these works would be required prior to construction.  Consent for the Avon River stopbank extension has been obtained. 

7.16    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision relating to the Christchurch District Drainage Act 1951 and potential future liabilities resulting from installation of ‘defences against water’. 

7.17    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

7.18    There are a number of risks associated with enacting these works from both engineering and social standpoints.

7.19    Risk of flooding caused by system failure, overtopping during events that are larger than the design capacity, storm event erosion or operational deficiency (e.g. the stop logs are not removed) remains.  This will result in flooding of streets, properties and potentially some homes.

7.19.1 Treatment: Ongoing operational management of the network is fundamental to ongoing flood management.  Response plans are already in place and will need to be continued.

7.19.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the nature of the proposed system.

7.20    There is a risk that long term planning is not resolved (e.g. plans are not agreed or funding is not available) within the design life of the works. 

7.20.1 Treatment: Ongoing maintenance of the works will be required and a detailed risk assessment will be needed if the temporary works are to remain beyond 20 years.

7.20.2 Residual risk rating: the rating of the risk is low given the proposed design life.

Implementation

7.21    Implementation dependencies - There are no dependencies with starting the design and consenting work.  Resource consents will be required prior to starting physical works.

7.22    Implementation timeframe – Delivery of the project will be dependent on the determination of the resource consent level of notification.  It is expected that the project can be completed next financial year if resource consents are obtained without delays.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.23    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced risk of overfloor flooding of potentially one house and underfloor flooding of an estimated 70 homes in South New Brighton in a predicted 1/50 AEP estuary event.

·    Consistency with the Council resolution of 10 October 2017 (CNCL/2017/00290).

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

·    Provides consistent treatment of properties along Avon River and estuary edge.

·    Reduces risk to properties while longer term options for tidal flooding are considered as part of the Southshore and South new Brighton regeneration strategy.

7.24    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Floor levels are at higher risk of frequent flooding in other parts of the city.

·   Greater cost than the Do Nothing Immediately Option or the preferred option.

8.   Option 3 – Do Nothing Immediately

Option Description

8.1       This option would delay all works in Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park, including the stopbank extension works around Bridge Street.  All works would await decisions on the South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy. Explicit hydraulic modelling of this option has not been undertaken.

Significance

8.2       The level of significance of this option is low, which is consistent with section 2 of this report.

8.3       Engagement with the community was undertaken to inform the development of the reserve management plan and development plan.  Feedback from the community prompted this report.  Consultation with the community may be required to inform resource consent applications for the proposed works.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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       As described above there has been deputations and media reports on tidal flood risk in this area.

8.6       A seminar with the Coastal Burwood Community Board was held on 4 April 2018. 

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

8.7       This ‘do nothing immediately’ option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies but would delay implementation of components of the South New Brighton Park Development Plan.

Financial Implications

8.8       Cost of Implementation – if none of the northern works proceed, $480,000 is expected to be reallocated within the LDRP from the total project budget.

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

8.10    Funding source – Land Drainage Recovery Programme.

Legal Implications

8.11    As outlined in Council’s Standing Order 19.6, alteration of the Council resolution (CNCL/20017/00289) of 10 October 2017 would be required to support this option. 

8.12    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision relating to building consent applications and the setting of floor levels.

8.13    This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

Risks and Mitigations

8.14    The same risks apply to this option as per Option 1 but to a slightly greater degree.

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies  - none.

8.16    Implementation timeframe – none.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Reduced capital costs that can be applied to other higher priority Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) projects.

·   No disruption within Bridge Reserve and South New Brighton Park.

·   No impact on flora and fauna (less tree removals).

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

8.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Greater risk of flooding that Option 1.

·   An inconsistent treatment of flood risk for properties along Brighton Spit.

·   An alternation to the Council resolution of 10 October 2017 (CNCL/2017/00290).

·   Could present legal risks associated with historical floor level setting.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a 

South New Brighton 50 year Tidal Flood Map

 

 

 

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

Tom Parsons - Surface Water Engineer

Jo Golden - Project Manager

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

19.    Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 11 April 2018

Reference:

18/393217

Presenter(s):

Samantha Kelly – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 11 April 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 11 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 11 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Samantha Kelly - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

26 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


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

20.    Insurance Committee Minutes - 6 April 2018

Reference:

18/340075

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Insurance Committee held a meeting on 6 April 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Insurance Committee meeting held 6 April 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Insurance Committee - 6 April 2018

2

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

26 April 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

21.    Draft submission on Government Policy Statement on Land Transport

Reference:

18/333680

Presenter(s):

Ruth Hudson, Senior Policy Planner - Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to approve the separately circulated submission on the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2018/19 to 2027/28.  

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Approve the circulated draft submission on the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport.

 

 

3.   Key Points

3.1       The draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) has been prepared by the New Zealand Government (Ministry of Transport). The GPS sets out the government’s priorities for expenditure from the National Land Transport Fund over the next 10 years. The GPS outlines how funding is allocated and priorities between different activities such as road safety, state highways, policing, local roads, public transport and other modes of transport. It also guides Council on the type of activities that should be included in the Regional Land Transport Plan for national funding. A second stage GPS is also anticipated in 2019 which is likely to include further changes on rail, road safety, coastal shipping, climate change and emission targets.

3.2       The draft GPS provides guidance on how around $4billion is spent through the National Land Transport Fund each year. It signals spending a further $1.5 billion each year on transport through local government investment and a further $0.5 billion a year from Crown investment.  The draft GPS places an overall focus on four strategic priorities: safety; access; environment; and value for money.

3.3       The attached submission is in general support of the draft GPS which broadly aligns with the Councils transport investment priorities, Strategic Priorities and Community Outcomes. Staff make the following recommendations in the submission:

·        Christchurch is given a greater recognition under Section 2.3.1 ‘Results: Metropolitan and high growth urban areas are better connected and accessible’ to better reflect our unique position following the Canterbury Earthquakes and planning for significant growth and regeneration in the region.

·        Government, NZ Transport Agency and Greater Christchurch Partners work together to develop an integrated land use and multi-model transport plan to guide the future development of Greater Christchurch. The second-stage GPS should reflect this agreement and places greater emphasis on transforming public transport in Christchurch.

·        Alternative funding options are considered to fund growth of walking, cycling and public transport in Greater Christchurch and that the NZ Transport Agency reviews the Financial Assistance Rates and the Fare box Recovery Policy to enable better value from the local share provided through rates.

·        ‘Vision zero’ for safety is progressed and that the national road safety targets focus on continually reduction of deaths and serious injuries.

·        The Railways Act is reviewed to support the direction to improved safety at rail level crossings.

·        The definition in ‘Table 3: Activity classes and proposed funding ranges’ is reviewed to include demand management

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Draft submission on Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

 

Signatories

Authors

Ruth Hudson - Senior Policy Planner Transport

Rae-Anne Kurucz - Team Leader Transport

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

   

 


Council

26 April 2018

 

 

22.  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

26 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

23

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 1 March 2018

 

 

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

 

24

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 22 March 2018

 

 

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

 

25

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 5 April 2018

 

 

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

 

26

Public Excluded Council Minutes - 12 April 2018

 

 

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

 

27

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 4 April 2018

 

 

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

 

28

Sumner Road Roading and Walls Repairs Contract

s7(2)(h)

Commercial Activities

The report contains commercial information provided by the contractor.

Following award of contract variation

29

Public Excluded Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 11 April 2018

 

 

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

 

30

Dudley Creek Flood Remediation

s7(2)(a), s7(2)(b)(ii), s7(2)(g), s7(2)(i)

Protection of Privacy of Natural Persons, Prejudice Commercial Position, Maintain Legal Professional Privilege, Conduct Negotiations

Property negotiations are currently proceeding with private property owners.

Can be progressively released when the Chief Executive decides there are no longer grounds under the Act for withholding

31

Public Excluded Insurance Committee Minutes - 6 April 2018

 

 

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