Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                     Monday 3 September 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

29 August 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 15

Staff Reports

C       8.       Cave Terrace, Redcliffs - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions................................... 19

C       9.       Hassals Lane at Bond Street, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions......... 29

C       10.     238 Bridle Path Road, Ferrymead - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.................. 37

C       11.     Woodham Road near Ngarimu Street, Linwood - Proposed P3, No Stopping and Bus Stop Restrictions............................................................................................................ 45

C       12.     104 Byron Sreet, Sydenham - Proposed Revisions to Loading Zone and new P60 Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 55

A       13.     Linwood-Eastgate Area Integrated Transport Study................................................. 63

C       14.     Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation - Stage 2 Landscape Plan.............. 477

C       15.     Applications to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund - Various 509

C       16.     2018 Young Elected Members Hui - Board Members' Attendance......................... 513

 

B       17.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 517 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 15 August 2018  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

 

It is intended that the public forum session will be held at 3.15pm.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.1

Cave Terrace, Redcliffs – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions (Agenda Item 8).

 

Shirley Rawstron, property owner, will speak to the Board on the Cave Terrace - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.

 

Michelle Cummins, local resident, will speak to the Board on the Cave Terrace – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.

 

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 15 August 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

15 August 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Shupayi Mpunga

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6605

shupayi.mpunga@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Decision

No apologies were received.

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00129

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Friday, 3 August 2018 be confirmed.

Darrell Latham/Alexandra Davids                                                                                                                         Carried

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1

Christchurch Youth Council Community Series (Agenda Item 13 refers.)

                The scheduled deputation did not attend and will present to the Board at a later date.

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnson arrived at 10.15am.

 

5.2     Moa Bone Cave Footpath, Recliffs (Agenda Item 13 refers)

Rose McInerey, representing the Redcliffs School Board of Trustees, spoke to the Board regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave Footpath report.

Ms McInerey, Principal of Redcliffs School, spoke regarding the proposals in the moa Bone Cave footpath report. Ms McInerey indicated the Board of Trustees supports the reinstatement of the footpath on the south side of Main Road but opposes the no stopping restrictions and bus stop proposals  that predetermine the future location of a pedestrian crossing as the Trustees would like to see the crossing located closer to the school entrance.

Ms Dianne France and Ms Jackie Barker, representing the Balmoral Lane Association, spoke regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave footpath report.  Ms France advised that the Association support the reinstatement of the footpath on the south side of Main Road. The Association consider that the footpath is essential to provide the community with safe access to and from Redcliffs.

Ms Suzanne Partridge, local resident, spoke on behalf of herself and Mr Brian Cornish, regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave footpath report.   She expressed concern at the proposal’s effect on traffic flow. Ms Partridge said she believes residents need to have on street parking to manage exiting their properties at times when there is a steady flow of traffic. Ms Partridge also said that her understanding was that children walking to Redcliffs school would be using the Coastal Pathway not Main Road.

Mr Matt Cockcroft, local resident, spoke regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave footpath report.  Mr Cockcroft indicated support for the reinstatement of the footpath on the south side of Main Road but said he considers that the location of a pedestrian crossing needs to be identified and consulted on as this location affects the proposal for no stopping restrictions. 

Mr James Simpson, local resident, spoke regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave footpath report. He indicated that he supports reinstatement of the footpath on the south side of Main Road but not the no stopping restrictions and bus stop proposals. He pointed out that if the no stopping proposals are approved there will be nowhere on Main Road for parents to legally park to drop children at Redcliffs School.

Ms Daphne Rolston, local resident spoke regarding the proposals in the Moa Bone Cave Footpath report.  Ms Rolston opposes all the proposals. She advised that she considers that there is  insufficient room to construct the proposed footpath. Ms Rolston is concerned about the risk of rockfall for those on the proposed footpath.  Further she said her understanding is that school children would be entering Redcliffs School via Beachville Road and not Main Road.   Ms Rolston expressed an opinion that the proposal caters for school children and cyclists but not local residents and motorists.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked each deputation for their presentation.

 

15. Correspondence

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00130

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the tabled correspondence from Redcliffs School Board of Trustees.

Sara Templeton/Yani Johanson                                                                                                                             Carried

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Moa Place, Christchurch - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00131 (original staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Moa Place as shown by broken yellow lines on the drawing TG133077 issue 1 dated 17/7/2018, attached to the agenda for this meeting is prohibited.

2.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in 1.are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1. are in place.

Darrell Latham/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

8.   Hassals Lane at Bond Street, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

 

This report was withdrawn prior to the meeting and will be represented to the Board at a later date.

 

 

9.   173 Chester Street East, Christchurch - proposed removal of P120 restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00132 (original staff recommendations adopted without change)

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 6 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 that the existing 120 minute parking restrictions on that part of Chester Street East, as shown on drawing TG133001 issue 1 dated 4/7/2018, attached to the agenda for this meeting, are revoked.

2.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in 1. are removed.

Deon Swiggs/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

10. Moa Bone Cave Footpath

 

Board Comment

Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report and answered questions from members.

In its deliberations, the Board also took account of the deputations from Redcliffs School Board of Trustees, Dianne France, Suzanne Partridge,            Matt Cockcroft, James Simpson, and Daphne Rolston, local residents (Items 5.2 – 5.7 of these minutes refer), and correspondence received on the matter (Item 15).  The Board noted that staff agreed to provide a holistic transport plan for the Redcliffs School area for the Board’s consideration.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve implementation of the footpath adjacent to the security fence below the cliff face opposite No 5 Main Road to 27 Main Road.

2.         Approve removal of the bus stop at No 5 Main Road.

3.         Approve the no stopping restrictions on the north east side of Main Road from Beachville Road to and including No 27 Main Road, a distance of 235 metres from the intersection.

4.         Approve the no stopping restrictions on the south west side of Main Road from McCormack’s Bay Road to Puriwheriro Lane, a distance of 258 metres from McCormack’s Bay Road.

5.         Approve the no stopping restriction outside No 29 and 31 Main Road, and No 124a Main Road upon construction of a new crossing point for the new primary school to be constructed on Redcliff’s Park.

6.         Approve the installation of a bus stop outside No 31 and 33 Main Road and removal of the bus stop outside No 47/49 Main Road upon construction of a new crossing point for the new primary school to be constructed on Redcliff’s Park.

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00133

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approve implementation of the footpath adjacent to the security fence below the cliff face opposite No 5 Main Road to 27 Main Road.

2.            Request staff work with the Ministry of Education to identify a location for the bus stop outside of the new Redcliffs School as part of the street front design.

3.         Approve the no stopping restrictions on the north east side of Main Road from Beachville Road to and including No 27 Main Road, a distance of 235 metres from the intersection.

4.         Approve the no stopping restrictions on the south west side of Main Road from McCormack’s Bay Road to Puriwheriro Lane, a distance of 258 metres from McCormack’s Bay Road.

5.            Request that staff align the road resurfacing of Main Road Redcliffs with the footpath reinstatement at Moa Bone Cave.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                   Carried

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11.43am and resumed at 11.53am

 

11. Coastal Pathway Project - Removal of Trees

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00134 (Original staff recommendations were adopted without change.)

Part C

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves the Landscape Plan for the Coastal Pathway project, including the planting plan, comprising approximately 48 new trees, as detailed at Attachment A.

2.         Approves the removal of 24 healthy and structurally sound trees to allow the project to be fully implemented, as detailed at Attachment A.

3.         Acknowledge that 14 trees in poor condition will be removed under the existing delegation provided to the Head of Parks, as detailed at Attachment A.

Darrell Latham/Sara Templeton                                                                                                                            Carried

 

Brenda Lowe-Johnson and Yani Johanson requested that their votes against the decision be recorded.

 

 

 

12. Proposed licence to Roimata Commons Trust over part of Radley Park

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00135 (Original staff recommendations were adopted without change.)

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the Hearing Panel Report and consider the submissions received during the public consultation process on the proposal to licence part of Radley Park.

2.         Grant a licence to Roimata Commons Trust pursuant to the requirements of section 54(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 over approximately 400 square metres of the land Res 4741 held in Certificate of Title CB39D/5, as shown on the Plan in Attachment A attached to the agenda for this meeting, subject to survey, for a period of up to 10 years broken into two five year terms for the establishment and operation of a community garden.

3.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to make all decisions at their sole discretion to negotiate, conclude and administer all further terms and conditions of the licence agreement.

Alexandra Davids/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

13. Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - August 2018

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for August 2018.

2.         Approve the categories for the 2018-19 Edible Garden Awards as:

a.         Residential house or unit;

b.         Early Childhood Centre/School; and

c.         Community Garden.

3.         Consider including Special Awards for the 2018-19 Edible Gardens Awards:

a.         Best First Time Garden;

b.         Best Sustainability Features;

c.         Organic Garden;

d.         Best Yield; and

e.         Best Tomatoes.

4.         Approve the use of the Light Bulb Moments fund to assist early childhood centres, schools and community groups and organisations to establish new edible gardens, and delegate to staff approval of applications for this purpose.

5.         Nominate and approve two Community Board members to attend the Christchurch Youth Council Community Series event to be held in Linwood-Central-Heathcote community board area.

6.         Consider submitting on the following Bylaw Reviews:

a.         Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009.

b.         Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013.

c.         Cemeteries Bylaw 2013.

d.         Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

e.         Public Places Bylaw 2008.

7.         Consider items for inclusion on Newsline, Board Newsletter and the Board Report to the Council’s 6 September 2018 meeting.

8.         Consider whether it would like to provide funding of $35,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund for rebuild of steps at Beachville Reserve into the estuary, and request that any unused funds be returned to the Board.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00136

Part B

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for August 2018.

2.         Approve the categories for the 2018-19 Edible Garden Awards as:

a.         Residential house or unit;

b.         Early Childhood Centre/School; and

c.         Community Garden.

3.         Approve including Special Awards for the 2018-19 Edible Gardens Awards:

a.         Best First Time Garden;

b.         Best Sustainability Features;

c.         Organic Garden;

d.         Best Yield; and

e.         Best Tomatoes.

4.         Approve the use of the Light Bulb Moments fund to assist early childhood centres, schools and community groups and organisations to establish new edible gardens, and delegate to staff approval of applications for this purpose.

5.         Nominate Alexandra Davids and Jake McLellan to attend the Christchurch Youth Council Community Series event to be held in Linwood-Central-Heathcote community board area.

6.         Expressed interest in submitting on the following Bylaw Reviews:

a.         Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2009.

b.         Brothels (Location and Commercial Sexual Services Signage) Bylaw 2013.

c.         Cemeteries Bylaw 2013.

d.         Freedom Camping Bylaw 2015.

e.         Public Places Bylaw 2008

and request that staff arrange a workshop to formulate the Board’s submissions on the Bylaws Review 2018.

7.         Request a staff report on current Council delegation in respect of alcohol licensing under the Sale of Alcohol Act and note the current delay in the review of Community Board delegation by the Council.

Sally Buck/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                        Carried

 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00137

8.         Grant funding of $35,000 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund for rebuild of steps at Beachville Reserve into the estuary, and request that any unused funds be returned to the Board.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                       Carried

Deon Swiggs requested that his vote against the decision be recorded.

 

 

14. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

The following information was exchanged at this meeting:

·    Bromley Air Quality – the Board requested staff to provide information on the current status and timeline for the CCC and ECan joint air quality monitoring programme.

·    Collective for the Homeless – The Collective for the Homeless is now based at 301 Tuam Street, Christchurch Community House.

·    Revitalisation Project . Updates will be provided to the Board in the next Area Report.

·    Christchurch City Council Storm Water Consent Application – The Council’s Integrated Stormwater consent has been notified by ECAN.  The consent covers discharges for the next 25 years including discharges to the Estuary.  Submissions period closes on 1 August 2018.

 

14.1    Dunoon Place

Part B

The Board requested that staff organise a meeting with Dunoon Place residents affected by

waste water issues.

 

  

Meeting concluded at 1.05pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018.

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

18/858131

Presenter(s):

Liz Beaven, Community Board Adviser

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

T Carey

Cave Terrace – Proposed Parking Restrictions

Christchurch Coastal Residents' United

Higher Flood Hazard Management Areas and Residential Unit Overlays

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 03 September 2018

2.         Support staff to resolve the implementation issues with the Residential Unit Overlay in the Christchurch District Plan, including the potential use of section 71 powers under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.   Any resolution of the issue should include solutions to achieve implementation of the Residential Unit Overlay as intended by Decision 53 of the Independent Hearings Panel.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

T Carey - Cave Terrace Proposed Parking Restrictions

16

b

Correspondence - Christchurch Coastal Residents' United

17

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

8.        Cave Terrace, Redcliffs - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/806731

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on Cave Terrace in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B. Site photographs are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from residents on this street who expressed various concerns relating to inconsiderate parking which sometimes block their property, affecting passing pedestrians and vehicles driving uphill on Cave Terrace.

1.4       These measures have been requested to keep the area fully clear for residents, pedestrians and passing traffic.

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 factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Cave Terrace as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133073 issue 1 dated 9/7/2018, is prohibited.

2.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028) .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Provide No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Ensures that the access to 1, 1A and the garage for 3 Cave Terrace is kept clear

·   Ensures that the footpath along Cave Terrace is kept clear at all times

·   Ensure space is maintained for uphill vehicles negotiating the bend.

·   Provides space for service vehicles (e.g. couriers, goods deliveries and rubbish collection)

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The resident at 1 Cave Terrace approached staff relating to parked vehicles that often blocked access to their property.

5.2       Staff met the resident, visited the site and investigated the situation.

5.3       The site consists of a surfaced area adjacent to a hairpin bend on Cave Terrace. As can be seen in the site photographs, the road reserve extends off the main route and along the front of driveways to nos 1, 1A and a garage associated with no.3.  Presently there are no restrictions or any markings in this area. In addition, adjacent to the driveway to no.1, there is a stepped path which connects with Barnett Park.

5.4       It is apparent that it is physically impossible to park in this area without blocking either of the two driveways or the garage.

5.5       Adjacent to this area is the Cave Terrace route. This is a steep road with a hairpin bend close to the site, which reduces vehicles to approximately 20 km/h. Some rutting is evident on the inside of the bend as they overrun the edges. Cave Terrace is classified as a local road though medium size trucks were observed to use the road, presumably due to construction activity.  Uphill vehicles often needed to overrun the site by 1-2m, on the outside of the bend to negotiate the manoeuvre safely.

5.6       There is also a footpath on one side of Cave Terrace, which passes across the site via kerb cut downs, as shown in Attachment C.

5.7       The resident of 1 Cave Terrace reported that their driveway was often blocked. She explained that this was a combination of other residents, their visitors, users of the path and random vehicles such as for maintenance activity or construction vehicles, which were parked and left unattended.  In some instances, parked vehicles included trailers which extended close to the main road, causing problems for vehicles driving uphill and requiring space for overrun.

5.8       Furthermore, due to the winding alignment of Cave Terrace, vehicles often parked at a skewed angle which extended across 1 Cave Terrace or affected pedestrians or passing vehicles driving up the hill. 

5.9       Staff investigated the wider area. It was apparent that the two adjacent properties have other parking opportunities both on-site (within the property of 1A and for 3, around the back or on the empty section no.9) and on-street (approximately 50m further uphill which area available).

5.10    Staff conclude that for this location, stopping restrictions are recommended to maintain clear access to the properties and a clear walking path.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Cave Terrace in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan were initially issued to all tenants and property owners at 1-11 Cave Terrace.  The local residents’ association was also consulted.

6.5       Four responses were received of which only one supported the proposal.  The owner of 1A objected and the owner and tenant of 3 objected.

6.6       The owner of 1A requested all of the parking to be available. This property has at least 3 parking spaces on site and a long driveway, though it is evident that construction repairs are ongoing which is known to partially affect space on the property. The owner requested additional space for the sake of convenience.  Whilst staff appreciate construction and delivery vehicles need to be close to the site, it would be expected that these should drive onto the property, along the driveway. In the case of visitors, there are other parking opportunities on-street approximately 50m further away outside 18-22 Cave Terrace.

6.7       The owner of no.3 indicated that this location is the only access for 3 Cave Terrace and that this area is the only place available for guests. Staff disagree with this statement. Investigations revealed that the owner of 3 also owns 5, 7 and 9 Cave Terrace, which are adjacent though accesses separately a short distance away.   As can been seen in photo 4 of Attachment C, nos 5 and 9 are empty sections and multiple vehicles were observed to park on these sections via a surfaced access which also connects with the rear of no.3.  It can therefore be reasonably assumed that the owner would permit guests to park in this area, who would only need to walk a very short distance.  In addition, there are other on-street parking opportunities outside 18-22 Cave Terrace.

6.8       As staff consider that any parking at this location blocks either the driveways, the garage or footpath any permitted parking is, in fact unlawful even if it is by the owners of the property. Since there are also known to be other parking opportunities, the objections are considered to be an unreasonable basis for the status quo and the proposal is justified.

6.9       The Team Leader of Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $200 to provide road markings plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.13    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    Part 1, clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a likely risk of parking being displaced to other streets nearby.  However, there are parking opportunities located a short distance away.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Ensures that the access to 1, 1A and the garage for 3 Cave Terrace is kept clear

·   Ensures that the footpath along Cave Terrace is kept clear at all times

·   Ensure space is maintained for uphill vehicles negotiating the bend

·   Provides space for service vehicles (e.g. couriers, goods deliveries and rubbish collection)

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request to improve road safety at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the restrictions are not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing inconsiderate parking to still occur after appropriate deterrent measures have been recognised.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains some unrestricted parking spaces

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of the resident

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Cave Terrace NSR site plan

24

b

Cave Terrace location plan

25

c

Cave Terrace site photos

26

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

9.        Hassals Lane at Bond Street, Waltham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/790128

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on Hassals Lane and Bond Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to requests from local residents on this street who expressed various concerns relating to inconsiderate parking which generated safety concerns.

1.4       These measures have been requested to ensure drivers do not park at locations that require passing traffic to drive over the centre line and face opposing traffic, as well as blocking sight lines from Bond Street.

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 factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Hassals Lane and Bond Street as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133071 issue 1 dated 5/7/2018, is prohibited.

2.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028) .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Provide No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves forward sight lines along Hassals Lane and visibility splays from Bond Street

·   Ensures that vehicles turning in and out of Bond Street can remain on their side of the road and not in the path of opposing vehicles

·   Assists large vehicles such as rubbish trucks and delivery vehicles using the street

·   Enables two-way operation for cars along this section of Hassals Lane

·   Assists residents as they turn in and out of their driveways

·   Reduces the likelihood of damage to parked cars

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Two residents from different properties requested parking restrictions near the Bond Street intersection, as they referred to experiencing near misses involving turning vehicles at the intersection and dangerous overtaking on Hassals Lane.  They also referred to unreported damage to parked vehicles on Hassals Lane caused by passing vehicles.

5.2       Staff investigated the local street environment. Hassals Lane is narrow at 6m which includes a dish channel on both sides.  Currently parking is completely unrestricted; consequently, when parking occurs on both sides (equivalent to 2 x 2.1m) this leaves 2.8m which is barely enough for a standard car. The side road, Bond Street, is actually wider at 9m and forms an uncontrolled tee-intersection with Hassals Lane. Currently the intersection has no road markings.

5.3       Staff observed driving conditions in this area. It was apparent that for the Bond Street intersection, turning vehicles regularly need to swing wide (due to parked vehicles) across the centre line and face opposing vehicles. Whilst this is a compact residential area, staff consider this to be an unacceptable safety risk to drivers.

5.4       On Hassals Lane, cars had to carefully negotiate parked vehicles at a slow speed. Staff noticed particular locations, where it appeared impossible to drive any vehicle larger than a standard car, which is of particular concern.

5.5       The crash history has been checked for this location which did not show any recorded crashes. It is suspected that a reason for this is due to vehicle speeds being relatively low since the street is narrow. However, it is strongly suspected that vehicle damage occurs due to passing vehicles clipping parked cars.

5.6       The installation of the additional no stopping restrictions will improve safety and clear access for all vehicles along this street and at the Bond Street intersection.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Hassals Lane and Bond Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan were initially issued to all tenants and property owners at 1-15 Hassals Lane and the first 5 properties on Bond Street.  The original proposal related purely to the Bond Street intersection.

6.5       Eight responses were received of which 6 fully supported the proposal.  One response was received from the tenant at 9 Hassals Lane which requested an amendment which has been included.

6.6       The property owner of the flats at 8-10 (located precisely at the intersection) objected as she considered this would affect the value of the two properties.   Staff consider that since on-street parking at this location would be the most likely to cause a crash involving turning or opposing vehicles, retaining the proposed restrictions here would be vital to reducing the crash risk. Furthermore, these properties each have garages with driveway space and are considered to have sufficient on-site parking opportunities already.

6.7       Amongst the 6 respondents who supported the proposal, 3 requested additional restrictions further west along Hassals Lane, near Wilsons Road. The residents explained that parking at this location causes frequent safety concerns resulting in having to drive along the centre of Hassals Lane, resulting in near misses between opposing vehicles. Staff agree that this is a reasonable request and the proposal has been amended to include this.

6.8       The proposal will cause some parking displacement, though there are many on-street parking opportunities nearby on Bond Street and Wilsons Road.

6.9       The Team Leader of Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $500 to provide road markings plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.13    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    Part 1, clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    There is a likely risk of parking being displaced to other streets nearby.  However as this is purely a residential area and close to properties on other nearby streets with long frontages, staff consider that there are numerous other parking opportunities which are a short distance away.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves forward sight lines along Hassals Lane and visibility splays from Bond Street

·   Ensures that vehicles turning in and out of Bond Street can remain on their side of the road and not in the path of opposing vehicles

·   Assists large vehicles such as rubbish trucks and delivery vehicles using the street

·   Enables two-way operation for cars along this section of Hassals Lane

·   Assists residents as they turn in and out of their driveways

·   Reduces the likelihood of damage to parked cars

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request to improve road safety at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the restrictions are not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing inconsiderate parking to still occur after appropriate deterrent measures have been recognised.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains some unrestricted parking spaces

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of local residents

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Hassals Lane location plan

34

b

Hassals Lane NSR site plan

35

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

10.    238 Bridle Path Road, Ferrymead - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/806686

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on Bridle Path Road in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B. Site photographs are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local resident, who expressed concerns relating to inconsiderate parking which generated difficulties accessing their properties or obstructed their sight lines.

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Bridle Path Road as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133084 issue 1 dated 6/8/2018, is prohibited.

2.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

3.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028) .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Provide No Stopping restrictions (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves forward sight lines from the access towards both directions of traffic on Bridle Path Road

·   Provides more space to turn in and out of the access to the residents’ properties

·   Ensures northbound traffic can safely pass by a vehicle waiting to turn right into the access

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       A local resident raised concerns relating to the effects of occasional parked cars at this location which compromise safety and sometimes affect the turning space in and out of their access. The access services four residential properties.

5.2       Staff investigated this issue further.  Crash records were checked which did not show any recorded crashes. However, on further investigation the location appears to have various features which give rise to a safety risk.

5.3       The site consists of an access onto Bridle Path Road which is situated 60m south of the main access to Ferrymead Park. The residential access road has a steep grade and connects with Bridle Path Road at an acute angle. Attachment C shows the local environment. 

5.4       The resident indicated that occasional vehicles park on Bridle Path Road near the access, to walk to the football pitches. This location appears to be desirable due to one of the gaps in the timber fence being almost directly opposite the access and vehicles park as close as possible to the gap. 

5.5       Since the road reserve includes a sealed footpath on the west side, vehicles do not park off the road as they would block the footpath. Consequently, they choose to park on the road, which constrains the turning space in and out of the access or results in a queuing northbound right turner blocking other northbound traffic.

5.6       The resident indicated that occasionally vehicles park on the east side of the road, adjacent to the access, which blocks sight lines for residents turning out of the access. He indicated that the parking demands are not particularly high, though often occur at these problematic locations. Staff examined the wider area. It is apparent that there are many other opportunities to park on Bridle Path Road, adjacent to the football fields, as well as a dedicated car park, within Ferrymead Park.

5.7       Consequently, staff have proposed new restrictions on the west side of the road to maximise turning space and enable passing traffic to drive around waiting right turners. New restrictions on the east side, located either side of the access, will ensure the sight lines remain clear upon turning out.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Bridle Path Road in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       The proposal will only affect parking that occurs during football events at Ferrymead Park. The sports field is owned by Christchurch City Council. Consequently, the Council Parks team were consulted on this proposal. They indicated their support and agreed that there are sufficient parking opportunities nearby for players and visitors.

6.5       The Team Leader of Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation - $200 to provide road markings plus $750 for the preparation of this report.

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

6.9       Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.10    Part 1, clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.13    There is a risk of parking being displaced to other locations.  However, staff consider that there are numerous other parking opportunities located a short distance away on Bridle Path Road and within Ferrymead Park.

Implementation

6.14    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.15    Implementation timeframe - Approximately six weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   Improves forward sight lines from the access towards both directions of traffic on Bridle Path Road

·   Provides more space to turn in and out of the access to the residents’ properties

·   Ensures northbound traffic can safely pass a vehicle waiting to turn right into the access

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request to improve road safety at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the restrictions are not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing inconsiderate parking to still occur after appropriate deterrent measures have been recognised.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.12    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains some unrestricted parking spaces

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of local residents

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

238 Bridle Path Rd site plan

42

b

238 Bridle Path Rd location plan

43

c

238 Bridle Path Rd site photos

44

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

11.    Woodham Road near Ngarimu Street, Linwood - Proposed P3, No Stopping and Bus Stop Restrictions

Reference:

18/806797

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the installation of no stopping restrictions on Woodham Road in accordance with Attachment A.

1.2       The site is located within the road network as shown in Attachment B and site photographs are shown in Attachment C.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from Linwood North School to manage peak periods of parking demand and address safety concerns.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide more capacity for pick and drop off parking, improve the efficiency of bus operations and road safety in general at this location.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         That pursuant to section 591 of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part 1 section 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw, approve that the part of Woodham Road, as indicated in the attached drawing TG133061 Issue 1, dated 28/6/2018, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles and be restricted to maximum period of 3 minutes (8.30-9.00am and 3-3.30pm on school days).

2.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Woodham Road and Ngarimu Street as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133061 issue 1 dated 28/6/2018, is prohibited.

3.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that a marked bus stop, for the purposes of picking up and dropping off passengers only, be installed on the part of Woodham Road as shown on the attached drawing TG133061 Issue 1 dated 28/6/2018.

4.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

5.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028) .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Provide P3, No Stopping and Bus Stop restrictions (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Deters inappropriate long stay parking at a school drop off location

·   Increases turnover of parking spaces during periods of high demand

·   Deters parking at locations where sight lines from Ngarimu Street are obscured

·   Ensures buses can access the bus stop smoothly and position both doors close to the kerb

·   Eliminates the possibility of buses double parking and blocking eastbound traffic

·   Ensures drivers turning in and out of Ngarimu St do not swing out onto opposing traffic, due to parked cars

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Council staff met with senior staff at Linwood North School to discuss transport issues adjacent to the school.  School staff raised a number of matters on different streets around the school, though Woodham Road was highlighted as a particular concern, in terms of high parking demands at school start and end times, combined with various road safety issues here.

5.2       The area of interest relates to a 120m section of Woodham Road between the priority intersections at Ngarimu Street and Worcester Street.  A zebra crossing is located immediately west of Worcester Street and is subject to a 50 km/h speed limit.  Parking is generally unrestricted, with the exception of two P10 spaces on the north side, immediately west of the zebra crossing.  A bus stop is also present on the north side, though lacks any road markings.

5.3       The crash history was investigated. Since 2011 there have been two recorded crashes in this area, of which one during daylight caused a serious injury to a pedestrian at the Ngarimu Street intersection.  The other crash caused a minor injury and involved a vehicle, during darkness, on Ngarimu Street failing to give way.

5.4       Staff observed traffic conditions in the area. It was evident that parking demands were high during school drop off and pick up times.  Woodham Road was an especially popular parking place as it is a convenient pass-by location, without needing to drive onto Ngarimu Street and is relatively close to the school entrance.

5.5       Parked vehicles were seen to occupy the bus stop space, which in turn resulted in a bus double parking and blocking eastbound traffic.  Drivers were observed turning in and out of Ngarimu Street. Some vehicles were observed to park close to this intersection on Woodham Road and the side road, which led to sight lines being obscured and vehicles having to drive over the centre line of Ngarimu Street.  

5.6       It was apparent that there were other available parking opportunities on Ngarimu Street, which connects with other entrances to the school site. It is suspected these may be perceived as less convenient as they were further from the main road.

5.7       Staff have therefore recommended a combination of measures at this location and have discussed these with Linwood North School. The proposal consists of introducing P3 drop off/pick up restrictions on Woodham Road on school days, to increase the turnover of spaces at peak times. 

5.8       This proposal is in conjunction with other council staff providing initiatives to school leaders, to inform parents and carers of the effects of inconsiderate parking and to reduce parking duration, causing safety risks and blocking other drivers trying to drop off and pick up.  This is in addition to the promotion of accessing the school on foot and by cycle, to reduce overall vehicle trips and parking demands.

5.9       In addition, the bus stop will be fully marked out with appropriate restrictions to ensure bus services operate efficiently and provide safe access for passengers. No stopping restrictions are also recommended to improve sight lines and turning space at the Ngarimu Street intersection.

5.10    The introduction of these measures will improve the efficiency of use of on-street parking spaces, the bus stop operations and road safety in general at this location.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide no stopping restrictions on Woodham Road and Ngarimu Street in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan were initially issued to all tenants and property owners at Linwood North School, the nearest 10 properties on Woodham Road and the first five properties at the southern end of Ngarimu Street.  Environment Canterbury were also consulted, since the proposal affects bus services.

6.5       Three responses were received which all full supported the proposal.

6.6       The Team Leader of Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - $800 to provide road markings and signs plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.10    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.11    Part 1, clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    There is a likely risk of parking being displaced to other streets nearby.  However this is mainly during the peak time of school drop off/pick up. It is known that there are substantial opportunities for other parking on Ngarimu Street, including on the school side of this street, which would not inconvenience local residents.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

6.16    Implementation timeframe - Approximately six weeks once the area contractor receives the request.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Deters inappropriate long stay parking at school drop off location

·   Increases turnover of parking spaces during periods of high demand

·   Deters parking at locations where sight lines from Ngarimu Street are obscured

·   Ensures buses can access the bus stop smoothly and position both doors close to the kerb

·   Eliminates the possibility of buses double parking and blocking eastbound traffic

·   Ensures drivers turning in and out of Ngarimu St do not swing out onto opposing traffic, due to parked cars

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the unrestricted parking.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request to improve capacity for drop off parking and road safety at this location.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the restrictions are not installed there is a substantial risk that inappropriate parking would occur, that causes safety risks at the Ngarimu Street intersection and causes buses to double park at the stop location.  These risks are expected to be most intensive at the school drop off/pick up times, though could occur at other times.

7.11    The parking at the bus stop could mitigated by appropriate enforcement, though would be difficult to resource as this may not be regarded as a high priority by the enforcement team. 

7.12    If restrictions are not introduced at the Ngarimu Street intersection, the council could be at risk for not acting upon an identified safety issue.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.14    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Retains some unrestricted parking spaces

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety and operational concerns of the local school

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Woodham Rd site plan

51

b

Woodham Rd location plan

52

c

Woodham Rd site photos

53

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

12.    104 Byron Sreet, Sydenham - Proposed Revisions to Loading Zone and new P60 Restrictions

Reference:

18/849274

Presenter(s):

Barry Hayes – Traffic Engineer, Traffic Operations Team

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the changes to the existing Loading Zone and new P60 restrictions on Byron Street in accordance with Attachment A.

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

Origin of Report

1.3       This report was staff generated in response to a request from a local business to review the local restrictions which were no longer considered appropriate.

1.4       These measures have been requested to provide more capacity for pick up and drop off parking together with short stay parking.

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 factors relating to this decision against the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve:

1.         That pursuant to section 591 of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part 1 section 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw, approve that the part of Byron Street, as indicated in the attached drawing TG133072 Issue 1, dated 6/7/2018, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles and be restricted to maximum period of 5 minutes.

2.         That pursuant to section 591 of the Local Government Act 1974 and Part 1 section 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw, approve that the part of Byron Street, as indicated in the attached drawing TG133072 Issue 1, dated 6/7/2018, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles and be restricted to maximum period of 60 minutes.

3.         That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

4.         That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028) .

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Replace the P5 Loading Zone with a P5 (all vehicles) and a separate P60 restriction (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides legitimate pick up and drop off opportunities for customers

·   Provides new short stay parking opportunities

·   Reduces the likelihood of customers blocking access to The Diff Shop

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Council Staff were approached by the YMCA adventure centre on Byron Street who requested changes to the existing loading bay outside their property.  Currently this is designated for goods vehicles only and rarely used for that purpose.  They requested consideration for identifying new parking opportunities, due to the high parking demands in the area.

5.2       Apart from this particular bay, there are no other restrictions on this side of Byron Street. The opposite (north side) consists of no stopping and some unrestricted spaces.  Byron Street is classified as a collector road, so is likely to carry goods vehicles on a regular basis.  It is subject to a 50 km/h speed limit and marked as one lane in either direction.  This location is close to a priority intersection with Waltham Road.

5.3       Staff met the manager of the YMCA facility and spoke with other nearby businesses.  At present the yellow bay extends from the YMCA, westwards across the access to the adjacent business (The Diff Shop).

5.4       Further to staff meeting local businesses and site observations it was evident that the existing bay would be better utilised for drop off access at the YMCA.  The manager indicated that there are often small buses that bring groups of customers that would also use the bay.  Parking and drop offs are especially intensive during school holidays all week.

5.5       The Diff Shop indicated that they do not require the bay for loading purposes and that it would be better if it was marked differently, so not to extend across their access. A short extension on its eastern side is considered feasible and would not affect large vehicles turning from Waltham Road into Byron Street.

5.6       Further to consultations and site meetings the new bay layout has been agreed between the two local businesses along its frontage. Furthermore, new P60 bays are considered to be feasible on the opposite (north) side of Byron Street, which creates new parking opportunities.

5.7       Consequently, staff recommend the existing P5 loading zone to be relocated and replaced with a P5 (all vehicles) restriction, together with a new P60 restriction of the north side. The 60 minute restriction corresponds with the typical length of climbing session at the YMCA facility, so is considered appropriate.

5.8       Staff consider that these revisions will provide more appropriate restrictions for local businesses and ease parking (and drop off) pressures in this area.

6.   Option 1 – Install P5 and P60 Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Replace the loading bay with P5 restrictions and separate P60 restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.4       Letters of consultation with a site plan were initially issued to all tenants and property owners at the nearest 10 properties on Byron Street and Waltham Road.  This was based on converting the existing P5 loading zone to P5 all vehicles.

6.5       Three responses were received, namely the YMCA, the Diff shop and Cylinder Head specialists who are immediately east of the YMCA.  All of the replies supported a P5 bay and an ‘all vehicles’ restriction.

6.6       The Diff Shop requested that the bay is relocated slightly, as it currently extends across one of their two accesses, which sometimes causes some YMCA customers to park across this access. This is a perception that parking within the bay is acceptable, regardless of the access blocking.  Consequently, the Diff Shop requested that the bay ends east of their access.

6.7       Subsequent site meetings with the YMCA and The Diff Shop resulted in an agreed amendment to the scheme. This involves extending the bay on its eastern side by one car length and on the opposite side, replacing some no stopping restrictions with new P60 restrictions.

6.8       Staff assessed the restrictions on a section of the north side of Byron St and found no justification for parking or stopping not being permitted. Staff consulted the businesses on that side (Rock Gas and Simply Heat) who supported parking spaces being introduced at that location.

6.9       The Team Leader of Parking Compliance supports this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - $800 to provide road markings and signs plus $750 for the consultation and preparation of this report.

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

6.13    Funding source - Traffic Operations Budget.

Legal Implications

6.14    Part 1, clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    None identified.

Implementation

6.18    Implementation dependencies - Community Board approval.

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

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   Provides legitimate pick up and drop off opportunities for customers

·   Provides new short stay parking opportunities

·   Reduces the likelihood of customers blocking access to The Diff Shop

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain the existing Loading Zone.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       This option is inconsistent with the request to make the bay more appropriate for the current land uses.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation - Not applicable.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Not applicable.

7.8       Funding source - Not applicable.

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    If the bay is not changed or the P60 created, it is likely that YMCA customers, due to lack of parking opportunities elsewhere will park in the bay illegally and risk being ticketed.  Also the bay could also become unused and be a waste of street space.

7.11    This could be mitigated by avoiding parking enforcement of the bay. However, since the bay is immediately outside the YMCA facility, all day parking could block drop off activity which is more efficient close to the facility.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Not applicable.

7.13    Implementation timeframe - Not applicable.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   None identified

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of the local business

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

104 Byron St site plan

60

b

104 Byron St location plan

61

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

13.    Linwood-Eastgate Area Integrated Transport Study

Reference:

18/621960

Presenter(s):

Hamid Mirbaha, Senior Transport Network Planner - Specialist
Philip Basher, Transport Policy Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is to consider the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study (Attachments A and its appendices in Attachment B) and make a recommendation to the Council.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is to fulfil the Council’s resolution CNCL/2017/00126:

1.2.1   Request staff further evaluate the preferred option (Buckleys Road Bus Passenger Facilities Upgrade) for consideration by the Linwood/Central/Heathcote Community Board in time for inclusion in the 2018 Long Term Plan.

1.2.2   Request staff to develop an integrated transport plan for the immediate area taking into consideration all of the works that are occurring and are proposed.

2.   Significance

a)         The decisions in this report are medium significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by applying the policy’s criteria to this project, i.e. the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study and its recommendations.

2.1.2   The future community engagement and consultation for the projects outlined in this report will reflect this assessment.

 

3     Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends that:

1.         The Council notes the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study outcomes and recommendations to shape the future Long Term Plan transport programmes for this key suburban centre. 

2.         The Council endorses the staff initiative to use the balance of funds from the recently completed Aldwins/Buckleys/Linwood Intersection Safety project for the Buckleys Road bus passenger facilities upgrade, i.e. the preferred option from the 2017 Community Board and Council reports.

4     Key Points

4.1       Despite the Council’s first resolution (and the staff’s second recommendation) the proposed project was not included in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP).

4.2       The Aldwins Road/Buckleys Road/Linwood Avenue intersection has been recognised on the Council’s list of intersections identified with safety issues.  The safety programme was appeared in the 2015-25 LTP under the ID 17103 with a budget of about $1.1 million and initiated in the financial year 2017/18.  Following an extensive review of the intersection’s crash history and patterns, the intersection’s traffic signal cycle was upgraded in June 2017. The upgrade eliminated all right-turn filter movements during the day and improved pedestrian protection at the intersection.  Given the changes were recently made to the intersection, there is insufficient crash data available to determine if these changes have addressed the crash risk satisfactorily.  Nevertheless, a critical action for the intersection safety project is to continue monitoring the crash history to determine if the number and severity of crashes are reduced after a few years.

4.3       Currently the remaining resources of $1.1 million allocated to the intersection safety programme are on hold and could be made available to fund the project outlined below (section 4.4). 

4.4       The Buckleys Road bus passenger hub upgrade option would seek to improve pedestrian safety and bus passenger experience with a focus on the existing facilities at the Buckleys Road bus hub. This includes a signalised pedestrian crossing facility on Buckleys Road adjacent to the bus hub, an upgrade to the on-street bus shelters by providing larger and better weather proofed structures with improved seating and real time information (RTI), and enhancement to the footpath and cycleway connectivity and consistency in the surrounding area.

4.5       In accordance with the Council’s second resolution staff have prepared the Linwood–Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study (see Attachment A and its appendices in Attachment B). This study provides a detailed review of all transport issues in the area and provides a number of general and targeted recommendations for later consideration.

4.6       This report does not outline options as it is dealing with the resolutions outlined in section 1.2, e.g.:

·   Future proofing the preferred option to upgrade the bus passenger facilities on Buckleys Road, including a signalised pedestrian crossing.

·   Reviewing the recommendations in the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study to the Community Board and the Council. It is recommended that the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Council note the contents of the report, including the recommendations as a basis for future capital and operational transport spending at this key suburban location.

4.7       The 2017 Community Board and Council reports reviewed the potential PT Hub upgrade options, which were:

·   Option 1 – Buckleys Road facilities upgrade (preferred option)

·   Option 2 – Buckleys Road facilities upgrade on-street and waiting lounge

·   Option 3 – Eastgate Mall car park (rear entrance)

·   Option 4 – Cranley Street former library site

 

5     Context/Background

Background

5.1    The Hagley/Ferrymead Community Board meeting on 5 July 2016 considered a report reviewing options to relocate the bus stop adjacent to 35 Buckleys Road to Cranley Street. The Community Board resolved that the Council “request the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Committee explore options to build a covered integrated bus interchange at Linwood.”

5.2    This was considered by the Council on 11 August 2016 and the Council resolved on a joint Infrastructure, Transport & Environment Committee and Hagley/Ferrymead Community workshop that was held on 7 September 2016.

5.3    Utilising the issues and suggestions discussed in the workshop four options (paragraph 4.7) were drafted by staff and considered by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 3 April 2017 and the Council on 17 May 2017. This process led to the completion of the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study and its recommendations.

5.4    In addition the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and the Council resolutions identified the preferred option for the upgraded bus passenger facilities on Buckleys Road to be on-street shelters, seats, signs and passenger information. These improvements would be coupled with the proposed signalised pedestrian crossing to replace the current uncontrolled crossing.

Context

5.5    The Linwood / Eastgate Public Transport (PT) Hub was identified as a key interchange site in 2005. The Council commissioned Beca consultants to prepare a scoping report on site options at Linwood/Eastgate, which identified several options some of which are no longer feasible.

5.6    The key PT interchange status is confirmed in the Christchurch Strategic Transport Plan 2012, and Metro’s Hub & Spokes PT Network. The Hubs and Spokes is dependent on five core services, and six PT hubs for interchanging passengers including the Central City Exchange and Linwood/Eastgate.

5.7    Two core PT services operate in the Linwood/Eastgate area e.g. the Orbiter and Yellow services. The PT Hub is designated to allow the interchange of passengers to and from core services to local routes. The 80 City Connector service (Lincoln – Parklands) also stops at the Linwood-Eastgate Hub. The current local bus routes operating in the study area are 140, 145 and 535, of which the latter two terminate at Linwood/Eastgate.  The Metro PT Network is currently being reviewed at part of ECan’s Regional Passenger Transport Plan review process and these local routes may be cancelled or modified. However, the Orbiter, Yellow and 80 services are unlikely to be changed in the Linwood-Eastgate area.

5.8    The other key PT hubs have either been upgraded recently, e.g. Riccarton and Northlands, or have active projects seeking improved facilities, e.g. The Palms bus stop upgrades. Riccarton and Northlands were identified as part of the 2013 Crown / Council cost sharing agreement as the two busiest suburban hubs in Christchurch. 

5.9    It is widely acknowledged that the passenger facilities at the Linwood-Eastgate Hub are inadequate and in need of improvement. The bus stops in front of Eastgate Mall cater for up to 30 buses per hour in both directions and board up to 1,500 passengers per day. This places Linwood-Eastgate as Christchurch’s third busiest PT interchange rivalling Papanui/Northlands, and only outstripped by the central City Exchange and the Riccarton Hub.

Current Situation

5.10 The Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study contains the following recommendations for future action:

Active Transport - Pedestrian

·   Investigate as part of a future upgrade of the Buckleys Road PT passenger facilities the provision of the signalised pedestrian crossing to replace the current uncontrolled crossing.

·   Investigate and provide tactile pavers at all crossing facilities to ensure safe crossings for visually impaired pedestrians.

·   Audit the footpath conditions to ensure acceptable quality of footpaths for the mobility impaired. Also to ensure an attractive environment for walking.

·   To address the unconventional footpath for Linwood Avenue from the corner with Buckleys Road to Cranley Street where currently pedestrians are directed to walk through the McDonalds’ car park; two solutions have potential to address this matter:

a)     The current pedestrian entrance at the corner of Buckleys Road for the footpath across the McDonalds car park is not clear, particularly if the pedestrian is not familiar with the area. It would benefit from improved signage and perhaps footpath markings.

b)     Review options to install a footpath adjacent to the Linwood Avenue traffic lanes to replace the link through the car parks, subject to LTP funding.

Active Transport - Cycle

·   Review and provide appropriate on-street cycle lane facilities that are consistent with the Guidelines for local cycleways.

·   Investigate and provide appropriate cycle facilities (i.e. advanced stop boxes, hook turns and coloured cycle lanes) at all signalised intersections in the Linwood-Eastgate study area.

·   Investigate and provide appropriate cycle parking facilities where demand exists in the Linwood-Eastgate study area.

Public Transport

·   As part of any public transport future intervention it is critical to upgrade the passenger shelters and bus stops on Buckleys Road (opposite the Mall) to match those facilities on the Mall’s side of this road.

·   Future improvements to the PT passenger facilities on Buckleys Road should be coupled with a proposed signalised pedestrian facility to upgrade the existing crossing.

·   Recognise that an upgraded PT passenger Hub would be required in the future if PT patronage grows substantially.

·   Recognise PT priority on the core CBD – New Brighton corridor is likely to be required in the medium to long term.

Safety

·   Undertake a comprehensive crash analysis for the Linwood/Eastgate Study area to assess current and future safety factors and risks.

·   Monitor the future crash history (from 2018) for the Aldwins Road/Buckleys Road/Linwood Avenue intersection in the respect of the recent safety led changes to the traffic signals.

·   Monitor the future crash history (from 2018) for the Aldwins Road/Marlborough Street intersection in the respect of the recent upgrade and installation of signalised pedestrian/cycle crossing.

·   Review the crash history for the Hereford Street/Linwood Avenue to identify potential interventions to improve safety.

General Traffic

·   Recognising there are limits to expand the capacity of the arterial roads in the Linwood-Eastgate Study area and that the network should be managed effectively and efficiently. This may include the reallocation of road space particularly to bus priority and active travel modes.

·   Acknowledging the corridor optimisation which has been undertaken in the area.

·   Any modal recommendation listed below will have to be taken in the context of the integrated transport strategy to ensure that the Council’s priorities are upheld and any negative outcomes for other modes are minimised.

Freight

·   Ensure that freight requirements for the Linwood/Eastgate study area are accommodated in future transport projects and resource consent approvals without compromising the overarching environmental and transport objectives.

·   Preserve the study area’s existing reliance with off-street loading facilities to maintain the arterial road’s network efficiency, particularly in respect of Eastgate Mall.

·   If the proposed signalised pedestrian crossing on Buckleys Road is approved for installation it must be able to accommodate the over dimension routes’ requirements for height and width clearances.

Parking

·   Any future proposals to reallocate road space away from parking to either accommodate more traffic lanes (or alternative modes of transport) or further development of the Eastgate Mall site requires careful consideration of the impact on on-street parking levels, particularly in the context of adjacent residential roads, e.g. Chelsea and Russell Streets.

·   If the parking situation in the Linwood/Eastgate Study area were to change (e.g. if the Eastgate Mall RMA was implemented) it is recommended that a comprehensive parking study in this area be considered to address future parking issues.

Summary

5.11 The LTP 2018-2028 has no provision for the Linwood-Eastgate PT Hub upgrade project or indeed the other projects suggested in the Integrated Transport Study. This indicates that the majority of these possible projects are aspirational at this time, however, the study’s recommendations can be used to determine future transport projects in the Linwood-Eastgate area.

5.12 Nevertheless, as outlined above (see PT section) the Aldwins/Buckleys/Linwood intersection safety project has been completed and the remaining fund’s balance of $1.1m is on hold. Staff believe these funds could be utilised for the Buckleys Road Bus Passenger Bus Stop upgrade project including the proposed signalised pedestrian crossing.

5.13 There has been no public community and/or stakeholder consultation on the issues and ideas reviewed in the Linwood-Eastgate Hub Integrated Transport Study. However, if any of the suggestions reviewed in the study and outlined in this report were to be identified in a future LTP (2021 – 2031) there would be the appropriate level of public engagement.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood/Eastgate District Centre Integrated Transport Study May 2018

69

b

Linwood Eastgate ITA Appendices 27-06-2018

233

 

 

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

Philip Basher - Transport Policy Engineer

Hamid Mirbaha - Transport Network Planner

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 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


 

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 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


 

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


 

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

14.    Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation - Stage 2 Landscape Plan

Reference:

18/828544

Presenter(s):

Peter Christensen, Design Manager, Land Drainage Recovery Programme

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve:

·   The area of the Stage 2 Landscape Plan for the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation project within the Board boundaries, which includes 20 new trees and riparian plantings.

1.2       Decisions on the planting of trees is delegated to the Community Board, under Part D, Sub-part 1, 5.15  of the Council’s delegations register:

·   “Determine to plant, maintain and remove trees on reserves, parks and roads under the control of the Council within the policy set by the Council."

 

Origin of Report

1.3       This report staff generated. 

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 a score of 14 (Low) based on the significance criteria used by the Council.

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

2.1.3   Not approving the Stage 2 Landscape Plan would not directly affect the bank stabilisation works, and therefore would not increase the level of significance.  However, vegetation does provide a bank stability role over time, and not planting could affect bank stability in the long term.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Approves the Stage 2 Landscape Plan for the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation project, comprising riparian planting and 20 new trees.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

4.1.1   Activity: Flood Protection & Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5.0 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding - Delivery of works to meet floodplain management plans and remaining high priority plans: Start delivery of works to meet Heathcote, Avon and Estuary floodplain management plan  

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Approve the Stage 2 landscape plan (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Decline the Stage 2 landscape plan

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Enables bank stabilisation works to proceed without delay

·     The proposed planting plan will result in 20 new trees and riparian plantings within the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board section of the project (Eastern Terrace, from Tennyson Street to Waltham Road).

·     Benefits of more stable banks in the long term

·     Increased vegetative planting along the banks

·     Facilitation of the Mid-Heathcote River/ Ōpawaho Linear Park Masterplan objectives

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Temporary disturbance of the banks during the works

4.4       Consultation – The project team are engaging with affected stakeholders through the implementation of the Project Communications and Engagement Plan. 

 

5.   Context/Background

Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation

5.1       Land Drainage Recovery Programme (LDRP) investigations into earthquake damage along the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River were undertaken in 2015 and 2016.

5.2       The investigations identified a number of areas that were considered to require repair or remediation to ensure long term bank stability. The type of instability observed related to both earthquake damage and other naturally occurring processes.

5.3       It was identified through the investigation that while slumping and other instabilities have been a feature of the Heathcote River for a long time, the earthquakes have accelerated this process and caused more widespread instability than would usually be present.

5.4       Bank stabilisation works were prioritised according to the likely time to failure and the implication of failure. Works categorised with a priority of ‘very high’ (response required immediately or <1 year) or ‘high’ (response required within 5 years) were bundled into work packages and a design brief prepared. This is the work package for the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation project.

5.5       An example of work identified as ‘very high priority’ is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 ‘Very high’ priority works on Eastern Terrace

5.6       The areas covered by the works overlap with the Mid-Heathcote River / Ōpawaho Linear Park Masterplan (‘Masterplan’) area, although there are some work areas outside of the Masterplan as well. The stabilisation works have used the Masterplan to guide the design, and will enable future Masterplan development, e.g. through leaving space for footpaths.

5.7       The works have also been designed to add river capacity wherever possible, and to ensure a neutral or positive effect on river conveyance.

5.8       The proposed works cover an extensive area. The consultation booklet has been included as Attachment A as this shows the landscape planting, tree removals (not within the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area) and proposed bank treatments.

Tree Planting

5.9       Extensive tree planting is planned to be carried out as part of the project, and a landscape plan has been developed which includes the planting of 93 new trees within the project area.

5.10    20 new trees are proposed within the section of the project that is part of Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board are (Eastern Terrace, from Tennyson Street to Waltham Road).

5.11    The Stage 2 Landscape Plan has been developed in alignment with the Mid-Heathcote River / Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan (2009) and the Christchurch City & Lowland Canterbury Streamside Planting guide, and will include a mix of native and exotic tree species.

5.12    The ratio of native and exotic tree species to be planted within the project area is approximately 80% native and 20% exotic.


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve the Stage 2 landscape plan (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Proceed with:

·   The Stage 2 Landscape Plan for the stabilisation works

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 project is formal consultation with the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.5       Staff consulted with Te Ngāi Tūāhuriri Rūnanga through Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT). The feedback on the project was positive, with the Rūnanga agreeing to the proposed conditions under which the works would be undertaken.

6.6       A Cultural Values Statement will be drafted by MKT to accompany the archaeological authority application (required from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga).

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Community engagement for this project was undertaken from Wednesday 11 July to Wednesday 1 August 2018.

6.8       Flyers advising of the consultation, where information was available (libraries and online) and drop in session details, were delivered to all properties along the Heathcote River on Waimea Terrace (just west of Birdwood Avenue), Eastern Terrace, Riverlaw Terrace and Palatine Terrace.  This information was also sent via our e-newsletter to the Heathcote River database advising of the consultation.

6.9       A drop in session was held at the Beckenham Service Centre on Monday 23 July and was attended by approximately 15 people, including representatives of the Ōpāwaho-Heathcote River Network.

6.10    During the course of the engagement we received 14 submissions with the following feedback (note that these submissions relate to the entire Stage 2 project area, not just those within a particular Board’s boundaries):

 

FEEDBACK

PROJECT RESPONSE

Opportunities to undertake road narrowing in order to widen the riverbanks for the inclusion of a riverside cycle and walking path.  The extra width would also allow the return of big trees, such as willows.

Road narrowing as a means to provide increased space for the river and landscape planting remains an aspiration, however current funding for the  Mid-Heathcote River / Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan (LPMP) will not support any significant works of this nature in the foreseeable future.  Any works that are progressed, such as landscape planting will be undertaken in such a way so as to not preclude road widening in the future.

Currently no new willows will be planted as part of this project.  No existing willows are being removed as part of this project.

Parking should generally be banned on the river side to reduce ongoing damage – use of bollards or strategic planting

The project team understands that this would reduce the impact on the banks. However, this is outside the scope of this project but concerns have been raised with our roading team.

Improve native fish habitat/spawning

The project has sought to preserve as much of the current bank as possible to minimise the impact on habitat. In addition it is planned to place some larger rocks in front of the main line of rocks to provide additional spaces for eels and other creatures to inhabit. Larger pipes or hollow logs may reduce the structural integrity of the bank, and for this reason smaller pipes are proposed.

Ensure consistency with the Mid Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan and concern that due to budgets works cannot be implemented at the same time.

The works have been designed to be consistent with the Masterplan as far as possible. The project also aims to facilitate future works, such as leaving space for footpaths in the future.

The LPMP has been allocated limited funding in the LTP for the next three years.  The LPMP project team is liaising directly with the Heathcote Bank Stabilisation project team to identify and maximise opportunities for synergies to be realised.  It is likely that this will be primarily in the form of supplementary landscaping and other minor works aligned to maximise use of the funds.

Ensure that all proposed plantings provides an ecological continuum along the river corridor and is consistent with the Mid Heathcote River/Ōpāwaho Linear Park Masterplan

The LPMP has been used a guiding document during the development of the landscape plan and will adhered to as much as possible.

Feedback received about the native/exotic ratio, some wanting more exotics while other preferred more natives

Plantings will be consistent with the LPMP. The ratio of native/exotic trees species is approximately 80% native and 20% exotic


 

FEEDBACK

PROJECT RESPONSE

Requests for additional tree species

The current tree selection is based on Council’s Streamside Planting Guide and also consistent with the LPMP.

Stage 2 of the project will involve the planting of 93 trees of 20 different species, and that is diverse enough for this part of the project - but we are investigating substituting 2 of the indigenous species on the list with 2 that have been suggested (five finger and broadleaf).

Request for trees to be eco-sourced

Where possible we are using eco-sourced trees for the native species that occur locally, and will be using street tree grade stock where required.

Request for the removal of two small exotic trees by the Waimea Terrace footbridge

The two trees by the Waimea footbridge and appear to have been planted as replacement trees.  They are healthy and structurally sound and their removal would require a Resource Consent, asset owner and Community Board approval and consultation with surrounding residents.

 

They will not be removed as this issue is outside of the scope for this project.  

Have the impacts of climate change including rising sea levels, changes to rainfall patterns, rising water table been modelled and taken in to account?

As this project is primarily about stabilising the river banks the impacts on the design of both climate change and increased runoff are minor.

 

However, the wider Opāwaho/Heathcote River floodplain management scheme does take into account the impacts of both of these changes. It is also noted that as the climate changes further works may be need to be considered.

The proposals do not do enough to mitigate flooding in the Heathcote River. The opportunity should be taken to widen the waterway and flood plain while work is being done.

The proposed bank stabilisation works are not primarily aimed to address the impacts of flooding (although there is a secondary benefit of increased channel widths in some areas). Greater widening was considered, but as it would impact the road corridor and other services the cost increases significantly with only marginal benefit compared to other works (such as upstream storage).

 

6.11    Where we have received questions related to a specific site, the project team will contact that resident directly.

6.12    The project team will continue to liaise with the Ōpāwaho Heathcote River Network regarding the landscape planting.

6.13    A verbatim copy of all feedback received has been circulated to elected members separately to this report.

6.14    A letter has been sent to all submitters advising of the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Community Board meeting, and how they can speak to their submission if they wish.  Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback received and the Community Board report.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.16    Cost of Implementation - The cost of the landscape planting and establishment maintenance is included within the construction of these projects.

6.17    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – The proposed works are anticipated to be cost-neutral. Currently the banks are cut periodically and sediment removed from where slumps have occurred. The contract has a two-year landscape maintenance period to ensure good plant establishment, and once vegetation is established operational costs are likely to less than current costs.

6.18    Funding source - The construction costs of this projects are included in the Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.19    Resource consent for the physical construction works is required from both Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council.

6.20    No other legal implications were identified.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.21    No significant risks have been identified.

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - Implementation is dependent on approval from the Community Board.

6.23    Implementation timeframe – The landscape planting will take place as works packages are complete, with the first planting taking place during the 2019 autumn planting season.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·   Enables bank stabilisation works to proceed without delay

·   Benefits of more stable banks, less channel restriction, and greater flood flow conveyance achieved sooner

·   Increased vegetative planting along the banks

·   Facilitation of the Mid-Heathcote River/Ōpawaho Linear Park Masterplan objectives

·   The proposed planting plan will result in 20 new trees and riparian plantings within the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board section of the project (Eastern Terrace, from Tennyson Street to Waltham Road)

6.25    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Temporary disturbance of the banks during the works

7.   Option 2 - Decline the landscape plan

Option Description

7.1       Decline Stage 2 Landscape Plan.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is mediumwhich differs from section 2 of this report due to the inability to fulfil the project requirements, potential risks of flooding in some areas, and returning to the Council for further endorsement and resolution.

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are likely to involve further consultation with the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

7.5       The rūnanga have expressed support for Option 1, and feedback on not proceeding with the works would need to be sought.

Community Views and Preferences

7.6       This option is not consistent the community views and preferences expressed at the public meetings and through the consultation. In particular, it is unlikely to meet the expectation that restrictions in the river are removed and that the flood channel is made wider wherever possible. Additional consultation would be required.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.7.1   Inconsistency – Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding would not be fully implemented.

7.7.2   Reason for inconsistency – The bank stabilisation works may not proceed.

7.7.3   Amendment necessary - The design would require revision and further options would need to be investigated.

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – Additional costs in the re-design of the works.

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No change from current situation, but maintenance costs will likely be higher than Option 1.

7.10    Funding source – The re-design costs will be taken from the LDRP budget.

Legal Implications

7.11    No significant legal implications have been identified.

Risks and Mitigations

7.12    No significant risks have been identified.

Implementation

7.13    Implementation dependencies - Implementation of the works will be dependent on re-design of the landscaping works.

7.14    Implementation timeframe – This option will result in a delay to the bank stabilisation works due to the additional consultation required.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Less disturbance of the banks during the works

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Less riparian vegetation along the river banks

·   Less opportunity to implement the Masterplan works

·   Higher maintenance of the banks due to the need to mow

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Heathcote River Bank Stabilisation Stage 2 Consultation Booklet

486

 

 

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

Peter Christensen - Senior Water Engineer

Ann Campbell - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

15.    Applications to Linwood-Central-Heathcote Youth Development Fund - Various

Reference:

18/832842

Presenter(s):

Diana Saxton, Community Recreation Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application received for funding from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       At the time of writing this report there was an unallocated balance of $6,300 remaining in the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Youth Development Fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Board to consider four applications of funding from Sam Richardson, Milly Mussett, Joshua Wilson, and Thomas Georg Pirkett.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve a grant of $500 from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund to Sam Richardson towards competing in the House of Champs Hip Hop dance competition in Brisbane, Australia from 26 to 29 October 2018.

2.         Approve a grant of $500 from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund to Milly Mussett towards attending the International Guide Jamboree in Sydney, Australia from 30 September to 6 October 2018.

3.         Approve a grant of $500 for Joshua Wilson towards competing in the Arizona Fall Classic Showcase from 8 to 21 October 2018 in Arizona, United States of America.

4.         Approve a grant of $500 for Thomas Georg Pirker to participate in the Shirley Boys’ High School Rarotonga trip - ‘Retracing the Migration of our Tūpuna’ from 29 September to 6 October 2018.

Applicant 1 – Sam Richardson

3.1       Sam is an 18 year old resident of Redcliffs and a year 13 student attending Middleton Grange School.  He has been selected to compete with his group Reality Dance Crew in the House of Champs Hip Hop Dance Competition in Brisbane, Australia from 26 to 29 October 2018.

3.2       Sam has been dancing for 14 years and has been a member of the Reality Dance Crew from Swarm studios for seven years. He is also an assistant tutor for Swarm.

3.3       Over the last 12 months Sam and his dance crew have won the Nelson Shakedown Hip Hop Champs, the Cavell Leitch YMCA talent quest and the HHI Regional Hip Hop Champs.  He has also performed in several community events such as the Cancer Society Ball, Coca Cola Christmas in the Park, I Love Brighton, Christmas in Christchurch, and LYFE.  More recently he was involved in the Revolution Tour as a dancer during which time he travelled around Dunedin and Christchurch to help promote Mental Health awareness to secondary school students.

3.4       Sam aims to secure a full time job in 2018 working amongst young people teaching life skills, encouraging/supporting, and teaching dance.

3.5       To help raise funds towards the trip Sam has been selling entertainment books, had a sausage sizzle, and will be holding a quiz night.

3.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Sam Richardson to attend the House of Champs Hip Hop Dance Competition in Brisbane, Australia from 26 to 29 October 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return airfare

550

Accommodation

200

Administration fee

250

Registration fee

45

Transport

120

Costume

150

Total

$1,315

 

3.7       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

4.   Applicant 2 – Milly Payton Mussett

4.1       Milly is a 12 year old resident of Woolston, and a year 8 student at Ōpāwa School. She wishes to attend an International Guide Jamboree in Sydney, Australia from 30 September to 6 October 2018.

4.2       Milly started Guiding at seven years old as a Brownie, and is now attending Guides every Monday night for two hours where she has achieved all her Endeavours doing different activities to earn green, silver and gold Endeavour badges, and will soon be running a 24 hour camp for some girls in her unit. In 2016, she attended a National Jamboree in Christchurch.

4.3       Milly is head student at Ōpāwa School and has also represented Canterbury in the U12 Girls football tournament in 2017.  This international jamboree experience will strengthen her leadership skills at school and within guides, and she will be a role model for Christchurch and New Zealand.

4.4       Milly is looking forward to becoming a Ranger in Guiding, a leader at Linwood College, continuing with football at a representative level, and she would also like to become a more confident cook.

4.5       Milly has been doing numerous fund raising activities including a craft stall, doing jobs for friends and family, a fundraising movie night, sausage sizzle sales, selling cheese rolls and selling things on trade me.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Milly Mussett to attend the International Guide Jamboree in Sydney from 30 September to 6 October 2018:

 

Cost ($)

Return airfare

638

Travel insurance

79

Event fee, administration fee, international scarf and badges

1,600

Badges to swap

20

Total

$2,337

 

4.7       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

5.   Applicant 3 – Joshua David Wilson

5.1       Joshua is a 17 year old resident of Sumner and a year 13 student at St Bede’s College.  He has been selected to be part of the NZ U18 Baseball team travelling to Arizona Fall Classic Showcase from 8 to 21 October 2018.

5.2       Joshua has been playing Baseball for two years.  He trains twice a week and has a game on Sundays during the season.  He is also required to travel to Auckland for training camps.

5.3       Joshua is a dedicated, talented player and team mate and this will be an opportunity for Joshua to be recruited to play College Baseball in America, and to gain more experience that will also help with coaching younger players.

5.4       Joshua has been a member of the winning team for Senior Men’s Competition in Canterbury in 2018, a member of the U16 Canterbury team in 2017 and a member of the U19 Canterbury team in 2019. His goal is to gain a scholarship to College Baseball in America.

5.5       Joshua is undertaking a number of fundraising activities including having a part time job at New World, organising a quiz night, selling raffles at dancing competitions and holding a bowls tournament.

5.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Joshua Wilson to compete in the Arizona Fall Classic Showcase from 8 to 21 October 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return airfare

3,000

Accommodation

1,000

Events/fee/meals

1,000

Total

$5,000

 

5.7       This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

6.   Applicant 3 – Thomas George Pirker

6.1       Thomas is a 16 year old resident of Mt Pleasant, and a year 12 student at Shirley Boys High School (SBHS). He has been selected to be part of the SBHS Rarotonga trip – ‘Retracing the Migration of our Tūpuna’ for students studying te reo Māori at a senior level, or who are engaged in kaupapa Māori activities.  The trip will take place from 29 September to 6 October.

6.2       Thomas has been involved with kaupapa Māori for four years at SBHS. He has gained merit in NCEA Māori, performed kappa haka for multiple audiences, and done carving for three years.

6.3       The trip will deepen participants’ knowledge of other cultures as well as their own thus contributing towards creating global citizens whilst retracing the foundations of Māori language, history and traditions, understanding the environment, challenges and role of kaitiakitanga, and connecting with Tagata Pasifika.

6.4       Thomas’ goals in future are to be a leader in Te Ao Māori in his wider community, and to get into the School of Medicine.  He is interested in all things Te Ao Māori, sailing, and science.

6.5       Thomas is undertaking a number of fundraising activities including sausage sizzles, raffles and hangi sales.

6.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Thomas Georg Pirker to participate in the SBHS Rarotonga trip - ‘Retracing the Migration of our Tūpuna’ from 29 September to 6 October:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return airfare

900

Accommodation

100

Activities

300

Food

200

Teacher cost

300

Travel insurance

35

Total

$2,035

 

This is the first time the applicant has applied for funding.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

16.    2018 Young Elected Members Hui - Board Members' Attendance

Reference:

18/857345

Presenter(s):

Liz Beaven, Community Board Adviser

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a member of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board (the Board) to attend the 2018 Young Elected Members’ Hui being held at the Devon Hotel in New Plymouth from 15-17 November 2018.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Approve the attendance of interested Board members at the 2018 Young Elected Members’ Hui being held at the Devon Hotel in New Plymouth from 15-17 November 2018.

3.   Key Points

3.1       Board member Alexandra Davids has expressed an interest in attending the 2018 Young Elected Members’ Hui being held at the Devon Hotel in New Plymouth from 15-17 November 2018.

3.2       The theme for the Hui is We Are: Actively Engaging our Communities.  There will be a strong focus on how young elected members can effectively engage, communicate and work with their communities to achieve prosperity, resilience and well-being.

3.3       The hui will cover a range of topics including: Diversity in governance roles; elected members privacy obligations; Communicating with communities during natural hazard events; Community-led projects and initiatives; Strategies for brave and forward-thinking decision-making; the role of local government in overcoming challenges and delivering New Zealanders’ ambitions.

3.4       The cost for the Hui is $697 (exclusive of GST). This cost covers all local transportation (including airport transfers), meals, activity costs and two nights’ accommodation at The Devon Hotel. Delegates are responsible for organising their own travel to and from New Plymouth, so this would be an additional cost of $400 approximately per person.

3.5       The 2018/19 operational budget for Board members attendance at conferences and training unallocated balance is currently $5,652.  There has been no expenditure from that budget in the current financial year.

4.   Outcomes

While attending the Hui, delegates can expect to:

4.1       Network, exchange ideas and build strong relationships with other Young Elected Members and councils.

4.2       Gain a better understanding of how Young Elected Members can more effectively engage, communicate and work with their communities.

4.3       Peer mentor and access practical support.

4.4       Receive clarity around the legacy that Young Elected Members will leave with local government.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2018 Young Elected Members' Hui Programme

515

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

03 September 2018

 

 

17.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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