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:                                     Wednesday 17 October 2018

Time:                                    10.00am

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

 

 

12 October 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew McLintock

Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

941 6231

matthew.mclintock@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

17 October 2018

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 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

Staff Reports

C       7.       Major Hornbrook and Mount Pleasant Road - Proposed P2 and No Stopping Restrictions..................................................................................................................... 13

C       8.       Jordan Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions............................... 23

C       9.       Linwood-Central-Heathcote Wards - Proposed Road Names - Kea Mews............... 29

C       10.     Woolston Park Drainage Report.................................................................................. 33

C       11.     Radley Park Landscape Plan....................................................................................... 165

C       12.     Application to Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Youth Development Fund - Scarlett Ruby Girvan........................................................................................ 187

C       13.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - October 2018....................................................................................................................................... 189

B       14.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................. 210 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 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 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 1 October 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 10.10am

 

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.

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 1 October 2018

Time:                                    3.00pm

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

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

28 September 2018

 

 

 

 

 

Matthew McLintock

Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

941 6231

matthew.mclintock@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

There were no apologies received.

 

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

 

Sara Templeton and Tim Lindley declared an interest in Item 7.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00143

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 19 September 2018 be confirmed.

Darrell Latham/Jake McLellan                                                                                                                                Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

There were no public forum presentations.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

7.   Scotts Valley Reserve - Easement

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00144 Original staff recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

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

1.         Approve a right to drain water easement in favour of Lot 15 DP 396312 over:

a.         part Lot 25 DP 396312 (marked BQ, BH on DP 396312, attached to the agenda for this meeting);

b.         part Lot 25 DP 396312 (Marked V on DP 396312 attached to the agenda for this meeting); and

c.         part of Lot 2 DP 82547 (marked W on DP 396312 attached to the agenda for this meeting).

2.         Recommend to the Chief Executive the she exercise her authority as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the easement.

Deon Swiggs/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                         Carried

 

 

8.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018 Neighbourhood Week Applications

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00145 (Original staff recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

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

1.         Allocate its 2018 Neighbourhood Week funding as set out below:

 

Applicant

Activity

No. of participants

Staff Recommendation

1

Faith Dodgshun

Street BBQ.

50

$135

2

Cassie Lee (Youth Pastor applying on behalf of church)

End of year High School break up to bring our High School senior community together.

50

$0

3

Bev Adams (Woolston Development Project)

BBQ dinner for neighbours of WDP. Games for children are planned also.

40

$250

4

Julie Young

BBQ with the neighbours.

30

$135

5

Charlotte Russell

Street BBQ.

30

$80

6

Nikki Wallace-Bell

Street gathering for all residents. Family BBQ and children's games.

95

$220

7

Tanya Didham (Avebury House)

Teddy Bear picnic for our local preschools to come and enjoy.

100

$0

8

Cassie Lee

New Year Lunch gathering.

30

$50

9

Hayley Guglietta (Richmond Community Garden)

Mad hatters tea party at the garden to celebrate our volunteers and local community who are cheerleaders for our space.

50

$0

10

Susan and Geoffrey Allen

Neighbourhood BBQ

30

$90

11

Cassie Lee (applying on behalf of church)

Community lunch and sports day.

125

$0

12

Murray James

RR&BA in association with the Avebury House Community Trust and the Richmond Community Garden would like to hold a neighbourhood party.

300

$0

13

Gary Charmley

BBQ.

29

$120

14

Hannah Herchenbach

We would like to plan a small afternoon/evening street party our neighbours and its adjoining streets.

75

$250

15

Diane Sutherland

BBQ.

16

$100

16

Kathy Duncan

Richmond Hill gathering.

60

$200

17

Liza Sparrow (Sumner Community Residents Association)

To celebrate by creating an event which brings locals together at a temporary outdoor dining room in the centre of Sumner Village to share a meal.

200

$0

18

Amanda Taylor (Burwood Day-care Centre for the Elderly)

Themed fair carnival for the elderly members of the community. Different stalls with items suited to their tasted and interests.

200

$0

19

Louise Edwards (Victoria Neighbourhood Association)

Neighbourhood BBQ.

65

$200

20

Amberlee Allison

BBQ.

30

$100

21

Luke Gardiner

Street BBQ for all Heathvale place residents.

45

$205

22

Jennifer Hoskin (The Charleston Neighbourhood Association)

Neighbourhood BBQ.

20

$100

23

Jenn Benden

Street party, a BBQ, and activities for the kids in our street.

50

$125

24

Fiona Miller (Beachville Road Neighbourhood Support)

Morning tea with entertainment.

100

$200

25

Annette Hobby

Skylark Lane residents BBQ to welcome new residents

35

$160

26

Ruth Beyer (Woolston Playcentre)

Get together with families from Woolston And Linwood Playcentres to have a party at Playcentre and some shared kai.

50

$0

27

Patricia

Pre X-mas get together of 4 neighbours in the lane and neighbours on either side of us with kids.

15

$100

28

Maureen Huston

Romar Lane gathering to get to know the neighbours.

25

$50

29

Caitlin Turner

Annual Darce Street BBQ.

29

$160

30

Kris Tynan

A street gathering of Panorama Road residents.

40

$100

31

Kowhai Otautahi Sports Association Inc.)

 

Hakari Whanaungatanga (family feast) for all members, support people, whanau, friends, kindred clubs, and supporting clubs to get together and celebrate together.

200

$0

32

Betty Chapman (Wainoni/Avonside Community Services Trust)

Nibbles, light tea & drinks.

33

$100

33

Janine Campbell

Community work followed by a BBQ lunch.

15

$100

34

Fasirua Stephen Walker (Worcester Waka Wake-up)

A gathering of neighbours for a meet, greet and eat. Proposal will be tendered to establish a neighbourhood support/crime-watch/aged walk & talk group.

60

$270

35

Kimala Temple

BBQ for our lane residents and neighbours.

40

$150

36

Philippa Pidgeon

Nutcracker Ballet Taster event.

20

$0

37

Charlotte Mayne (Chester St East Community & Surrounds Residents Association)

Community Christmas BBQ at Chesterfields Reserve.

115

$400

38

Marinus Schop

Street BBQ in Brownlee Reserve. Plus kids games.

60

$270

39

Margaret Jenkin (on behalf of Opawa Church)

Neighbourhood BBQ with residents in the streets around the church property i.e. Garlands Road, Opawa Road extension, Aynsley Terrace.

45

$150

40

Robin Arnold

Street BBQ.

40

$100

41

Jill Boanas

BBQ.

25

$100

42

River Jayden (Street Wise)

Street Wise have held regular feeds and would like to hold a BBQ for our Street Whanau.

60

$0

43

Glenda Martin (Christchurch Community House)

We would like to host a backyard BBQ for the Christchurch Community House members, community organisations who utilise facilities, and neighbours in the surrounding area.

60

$130

44

Margaret Jenkin

BBQ for cul-de-sac neighbours.

28

$120

45

Jane Cowan-Harris

Neighbourhood BBQ.

68

$250

Deon Swiggs/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

9.   Application to Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund - Various

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00146 (Original staff recommendation accepted without change)

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

1.         Approves a grant of $8,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to Ōpāwaho Trust towards youth work in Waltham and Ōpāwa.

Sara Templeton/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                      Carried

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2018/00147 (Original staff recommendation accepted without change)

1.            Approves a grant of $4,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust towards production of a book ‘A Bread Companion/Festa 2018’.

Jake McLellan/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                                                    Carried

 

10. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Board Members shared the following information:

·    Tūranga Opening – The Board were advised that Tūranga (Central Library) will be opened on Friday 12 October 2018.

·    Central City Development Forum – the Board discussed the recent change to the Central City Development Forum Terms of Reference and membership.

·    Woolston Cut Landscaping Reinstatement – The Board discussed concerns on the reinstatement of the landscaping on both sides of the Woolston Cut after the recent dredging.

·    Chesterfields Reserve – discussion was held on the current progress of re-establishing the reserve garden.

·    North Richmond Community Meeting – the Board were advised of an upcoming community meeting being held on Tuesday 2 October 2018 to the upcoming projects in the area and also to present information on an update of the roading review.

 

 

 

Meeting concluded at 4.21pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 17th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

7.        Major Hornbrook and Mount Pleasant Road - Proposed P2 and No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/958177

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 traffic management changes associated with Mount Pleasant School as indicated on Attachments A to C.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report was staff generated in response to a request from Mount Pleasant School who requested:

·   An extension to their existing drop off restrictions on Major Hornbrook Road to meet the current demands at school start and end times

·   No stopping restrictions near a popular informal crossing point on Mount Pleasant Road, to improve safety for pedestrians

1.3       These measures have been requested to:

·   Provide space for parents to drop off and pick up in close proximity to the school entrance and to ensure the turnover of parking spaces is swift at busy times.

·   Maintain good sight lines between vehicles and pedestrians using the crossing. 

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 Major Hornbrook Road, as indicated in the attached drawing TG133412 Issue 1, dated 28/6/2018 and TG133413 Issue 1, dated 26/9/18, forming part of the resolution is specified as a parking place for any vehicles and be restricted to maximum period of 2 minutes (8.00-9.00am and 2.30-3.30pm on school days)

2.         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 Major Hornbrook Road as shown on the attached drawing TG133412 Issue 1 dated 28/6/2018.

3.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles on the part of Mount Pleasant Road as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133141 issue 1 dated 28/8/18, is prohibited.

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 P2 restrictions, Bus Stop markings and 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:

Major Hornbrook Road

·   Provides additional capacity for the existing P2 drop off and pick up restriction.

·   Provides a clear on-street space for buses, especially assisting passengers requiring kerbside access to doors.

·   Reduces the likelihood of buses ‘double parking’ near the bus stop and blocking downhill traffic.

Mount Pleasant Road

·   Maintains reasonable sight lines between crossing pedestrians and vehicles.

·   Ensures that the crossing is not blocked by parked vehicles.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Council staff met with staff at Mount Pleasant school in connection with various safety and accessibility issues on the local street network.

5.2       School staff indicated that there was parking congestion at drop off and pick up periods. There is an existing P2 restricted area on Major Hornbrook Road (shown in Attachment B), which is fully utilised at school start and end times. School staff requested an extension to this facility, adjacent to an area which is a frontage to the school. 

5.3       This requested area is also adjacent to an existing bus stop for passengers travelling downhill on Major Hornbrook Road. This stop has a flag and seat, though lacks any yellow markings on-street. 

5.4       Marking the bus stop would reduce the possibility of parking at or near the stop, which would adversely affect bus operations and passenger convenience upon boarding and alighting from the bus.

5.5       Staff consider that an extension to the P2 restriction would assist vehicle access for parents and the bus stop markings would improve bus operations.

5.6       School staff referred to an existing informal crossing point on Mount Pleasant Road, which is especially popular for school children as they walk to and from the school. The crossing consists of kerb cut downs at either side, though lacks any road markings.

5.7       School staff advised that parking occasionally takes place either at the crossing, or close to it. This location is close to a series of road bends and steep alignments; consequently there are poor sight lines between vehicles and pedestrians, which cause significant safety problems especially for school children. Parked vehicles limit sight lines further and can be mitigated by No Stopping restrictions. 

 

6.   Option 1 – Provide Extended P2 Restrictions, Bus Stop Markings and No Stopping Restrictions (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Provide an extended P2 restriction and bus stop markings on Major Hornbrook Road in accordance with Attachment A and provide no stopping markings on Mount Pleasant Road in accordance with Attachment C.

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 Mount Pleasant school and the nearest 10 properties.  The local residents’ association was also consulted. For the Mount Pleasant Road proposal, the nearest five properties were consulted.  Two responses were received, both supporting the proposal. 

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 - $500 to provide road markings and one new sign and post, plus $750 for the consultation and 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, 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.

6.11    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    No risks identified. 

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:

Major Hornbrook Road

·   Provides additional capacity for the existing successful P2 drop off and pick up area. 

·   Provides a clear on-street space for buses, especially assisting passengers requiring kerbside access to doors. 

·   Reduces the likelihood of buses ‘double parking’ near the bus stop and blocking downhill traffic. 

Mount Pleasant Road

·   Maintains reasonable sight lines between crossing pedestrians and vehicles.  

·   Ensures that the crossing is not blocked by parked vehicles. 

6.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Displaces parking to other locations. 

7.   Option 2 – Do Nothing

Option Description

7.1       Do not change parking and bus stop arrangements. 

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 extend the existing school drop off and pick up facility and improve safety at these locations.

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, the parent drop off and pick up parking within the extended section would have a lower turnover, resulting in substantial pressure for parking spaces. This could become a nuisance for local residents.

7.11    The lack of the bus stop markings would, at times, result in buses unable to access the kerbside fully causing inconvenience to passengers and possibly double parking of buses, blocking downhill traffic.

7.12    At Mount Pleasant Road, if the restrictions are not installed there could be issues raised with the Council for allowing inconsiderate parking to continue after appropriate deterrent measures have been recognised.

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 unrestricted parking spaces. 

7.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the safety and operational concerns of staff at Mount Pleasant School. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Major Hornbrook Rd proposal site plan

19

b

Major Hornbrook Rd existing P2 site plan

20

c

Mount Pleasant Road proposal site plan

21

 

 

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

17 October 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

8.        Jordan Street, Sydenham - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference:

18/958183

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 Jordan Street and Hargest Crescent in accordance with Attachment A.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report was staff generated in response to a request from two local residents, who expressed concerns relating to parking activity which blocked the passage of service vehicles and turning in and out of driveways.

1.3       These measures have been requested to improve access to and from 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 Jordan Street and Hargest Crescent as shown by broken yellow lines on the attached drawing TG133423 issue 1 dated 6/9/2018, 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 sight lines along Jordan Street.

·   Ensures that vehicles turning in and out of Hargest Crescent 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 Jordan Street.

·   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 addresses on Jordan Street referred to service vehicles becoming blocked on this street and unable to access their properties on various occasions due to parked vehicles on both sides. Some damage to parked vehicles on Jordan Street was also indicated to occur, caused by passing vehicles.

5.2       Staff investigated the local street environment. Jordan Street is narrow at 6.2m which includes a dish channel on both sides. There are no restrictions on parking at the present time.  Inconsiderate parking can potentially restrict through movement due to the narrowness.  The street has a speed hump located near the middle of the street with a 20 km/h advisory speed.

5.3       Jordan Street forms an uncontrolled tee-intersection with Hargest Crescent, which has some stopping restrictions on the kerb radii, though not on the south side. Consequently, some parking activity causes other traffic to drive towards opposing traffic on Hargest Crescent, which itself has forward visibility issues due to a succession of bends nearby.

5.4       Staff observed parking activity and driving conditions in this area. Most properties have their own driveways with garages and on-site parking. However, on-street parking activity occurs at random locations with some opposite each other.  It is apparent that there is spare on-street parking capacity that affords restrictions on one side yet still function with sufficient parking for residents and their visitors.

5.5       It was apparent that for the Hargest Crescent intersection, turning vehicles regularly need to drive along the centre at the intersection (due to parked vehicles) and face opposing vehicles.

5.6       Staff noticed particular locations, where it appeared impossible to drive any vehicle larger than a standard car, which is of particular concern.

5.7       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.

5.8       The installation of the additional No Stopping restrictions will improve safety and clear access for all vehicles along Jordan Street and at the Hargest Crescent intersection.

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

Option Description

6.1       Provide No Stopping restrictions on Jordan Street and Hargest Crescent 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       Staff contacted all tenants and owners on Jordan Street and 6-8 Hargest Crescent.  Four responses of support were received including one request for amendment on Hargest Crescent, which has now been incorporated.

6.5       The council’s waste collection contractor had also been consulted, who confirmed that their vehicles had sometimes been blocked by parked vehicles. They confirmed their support for 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 - $300 to provide road markings plus $750 for the 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, clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install stopping 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 risk of parking being displaced to other locations.  However, staff consider that there are sufficient parking opportunities on one side of Jordan Street and elsewhere on Hargest Crescent.

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:

·   Improves sight lines along Jordan Street

·   Ensures that vehicles turning in and out of Hargest Crescent 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 Jordan Street.

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

·   Reduces the likelihood of damage 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 access 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 could be issues raised with the Council for allowing 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 parking spaces on both sides. 

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not support the concerns of local residents. 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Jordan Street and Hargest Crecent NSR site plan

28

 

 

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

17 October 2018

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

9.        Linwood-Central-Heathcote Wards - Proposed Road Names - Kea Mews

Reference:

18/1019943

Presenter(s):

Paul Lowe, Principal Advisor Resource Consents

 

 

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 and approve the proposed road names for one local subdivision.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated resulting from naming request received from the subdivision developer.

1.3       This report relates to the subdivision Kea Mews, 14, 20 Mathesons Road and 15 Olliviers Road.

2.   Significance

2.1       The decisions 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 approve the following new right of way name:

1.         Kea Mews (RMA/2018/1820), 14, 20 Mathesons Road and 15 Olliviers Road

·        League Lane

 

4.   Background

4.1       Introduction

4.1.1   A road naming request has been submitted by the developer for Kea Mews (RMA/2017/1820) subdivision. A preferred name and an alternative name(s) have been put forward by the developer for the right of way.

4.1.2   The recommended right-of-way names have been checked against existing road names in Christchurch and bordering districts, for duplication, alternative spellings, or other similarities in spelling or pronunciation to avoid the potential for confusion. The recommended names are considered sufficiently different to existing road names.

4.1.3   The recommended right-of-way names have been checked against the Council’s Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy dated 2 November 1993. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this policy.

4.1.4   The recommended right-of-way names and type have been checked against the Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4819:2011 Rural and urban addressing. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this Standard unless otherwise stated below.

4.1.5   Under the Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy the names considered must be requested by the developer. There is not an ability to consider alternative names without first checking whether there are any duplications or similarities with other road and right-of-way names.

4.1.6   Consultation has been undertaken with Land Information New Zealand who have raised no concerns with the proposed names.

4.1.7   The requests have been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which are summarised below.

4.2       Kea Mews (RMA/2018/1820)

4.2.1   Right of way names have been requested by Hesmac Properties Ltd for the right of way at the Kea Mews subdivision. To view the right of way subject to this application refer to Attachment A.

4.2.2   The right of way names have been chosen in accordance with the theme of historic connections to the site.

4.2.3   The names in order of preference are:

·    League Lane – The site was historically used for the Linwood Keas Rugby League Club. A reference to this previous use of the site would be a good way to keep the history relevant.

·    Congdon Lane – The Church of the Good Shepherd was established in Phillipstown in 1881 by Rev Hannibal James Congdon Gilbert and was a long standing institution of the Phillipstown Community.

·    Cyril Lane – The church was originally designed by Benjamin Mountfort and was extended in 1906 by his son Cyril who designed the extension. The Church of the Good Shepherd was badly damages and subsequently demolished after the February 2011 earthquake.

·    Tinsley Lane – Beatrice Tinsley (1941-1981) was a female theoretical astrophysicist in a time when the field was male dominated. She is said to have changed the way the world viewed the universe. Beatrice studied at Canterbury University. The significance of this name is more relevant to Christchurch rather than the locality.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Kea Mews Plan

32

 

 

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

Laura Braddick - Senior Resource Consents Support Officer

Paul Lowe - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Leonie Rae - General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

10.    Woolston Park Drainage Report

Reference:

18/919798

Presenter(s):

Grant Bunting Community Parks Team Leader

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to inform the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Council’s resolution request to report back on options to resolve and address land drainage issues at Woolston Park.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated following a 2018-2028 Long Term Plan resolution on options to resource and address the land drainage issues at Woolston Park.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Recommend to Council Option 1 as detailed within this report be implemented to mitigate land drainage issues at Woolston Park.

2.         That this work be prioritised following consultation with relevant stakeholders for the sports field component of the works.

3.         That the playground project proceed noting that community consultation is complete.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.3 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Sports fields - condition average or better: 50%

4.2       Woolston Park is a historic Land fill between 1909-1912. This necessitates a minimal profile disruption approach to avoid potential geotechnical risks. The Park experiences significant and water retention during wet winters, impacting on recreational and sporting activity.

4.3       As a landfill the surface may be subject to further settlement over time.

4.4       In order to achieve a satisfactory long term solution to the drainage issues at Woolston Park, it is important that options address the following:

·   Surface levels and contour;

·   Impact of flooding on the playground and pathways

·   Impact of flooding on the historic tree plantings adjacent to Ferry Road

·   Improve the performance of the sports fields during winter months by improving the ability to move water away from the surface and through the profile as quickly as possible so as to minimise ground closure or reduce restriction.

4.5       The following feasible options have been considered:

4.6       Option 1 – (Preferred Option) Regrade and resurface the field including installation of an automated irrigation system.

·   Field will remain a soil based field where swale drainage is installed around the western and northern perimeters.

·   In ground irrigation to be installed.

·   Playground drainage to be installed and connected to the existing storm water network.

4.7       Option 2 –Regrade and resurface the field only. Manual irrigation

·   Field will remain a soil based field where swale drainage is installed around the western and northern perimeters.

·   In ground irrigation to be installed.

·   Playground drainage to be installed and connected to the existing storm water network.

4.8       Option 3 –Install Gravel Banding drainage into the park, including installation of an automated irrigation system.

·   Install a primary and secondary (gravel band) drainage system to be installed to move water through the profile away from the surface.

·    To level the surface and re grass the site together after an automatic irrigation system has been installed.

·    Field will remain a soil based field where swale drainage is installed around the western and northern perimeters.

·   Playground drainage to be installed and connected to the existing storm water network.

4.8.1   Option 4 – Introduce a primary sub surface drainage including installation of an automated irrigation system.

·     A primary drainage system is installed into the sub surface to move water through the profile away from the surface.

·     Field will remain a soil based field.

·     Field will remain a soil based field where swale drainage is installed around the western and northern perimeters.

·     Playground drainage to be installed and connected to the existing storm water network.

4.9       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

4.9.1   The advantages of the preferred option include:

·    Provides the most cost efficient approach to addressing issues across the whole park

·    Provides a minimal disruption to the historic landfill and therefore minimises risk

·    Incorporates irrigation to enable year round management of sports turf health for both winter and summer codes

·    Resolves water retention issues associated to the playground and historic trees

4.9.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Risk of further land settlement

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       City Wide Sports Field Program

5.2       Forward programme of capital investment works for sports fields has been prioritised by the following criteria:

5.2.1   Post-earthquake repairs

5.2.2   Community field investment that has supported major events

5.2.3   Independent condition assessment of community clubs main field performance combined with winter codes equitable distribution and allocation.

5.2.4   General health and safety initiatives.

5.3       Programme status – Current

Location

Investment driver

Current status

Comment

St Albans Park

Earthquake repairs

In construction

Complete FY19

Woolston Park

Earthquake repairs

Preliminary design options

Subject of this report

Westminster Park

Earthquake repairs

On hold

Low priority field High cost solution

Linwood Park

Condition assessment

Preliminary design

Medium risk in the independent field assessments.  Scored high on the equity risk assessment for codes

Lyttleton Domain

Condition assessment

Nil

Lowest graded field in the independent field assessments

Somerfield park

Health and safety

Construction

Minor works underway

South Hagley Park

Health and safety

Preliminary Design

Health and safety issues occur in dry weather conditions. Two years ago dry autumn resulted in high number of significant injuries These fields have some of the highest use in the city hosting weekend and mid-week primary school activity

Barrington Park

Earthquake repairs

Nil

Similar situation observed during wet weather to that of Woolston park. This park is inaccessible most of the winter due to heavy ground conditions and surface water retention.

 

5.3.1   Current year 1 proposed funding  allocation

 Future works

Detail for FY 2019

Budget Allocation  FY 2019

Budget

$ 1,426,601

St Albans Park

Complete construction

$326,601

Somerfield Park

Complete construction

$   20,000

Woolston Park

Complete construction

$470,000

South Hagley Park Irrigation

Complete construction phase 1

$ 200,000

Nga Puni Wai Maintenance Equipment 

Complete acquisition

$ 110,000

Barrington Park

Complete design solution

$150,000

Linwood Park

Complete design solution

$50,000

Lyttleton Domain

Complete design solution

$100,000

 

5.4       Recently Completed Works

5.4.1   EQ repairs -Hospital Corner (4 x new Sand fields for the community and associated regional sports associations of the following Football, Rugby League, Rugby Union & Cricket)

5.4.2   Leslie Park -(1 x Soil Field for the community and Rugby League)- Training Venue Rugby League World Cup 2017

5.4.3   EQ repairs -Sydenham Park ( 2 x sand Fields and 3 x Cricket Wicket Blocks for the community and associated regional sports associations of the following Hockey, Rugby Union & Cricket)

5.4.4   Wainoni Park-(1 x Sand Field for the community and Rugby League) Training Venue Rugby League World Cup 2017.

5.5       Subject Site - Woolston Park

5.5.1   Christchurch City Council has a provisional list of locations that it considers appropriate for development of sports field capacity and drainage improvement. Woolston Park is one such location.

5.5.2   Woolston Park is a 3 hectare sports park located at 502 Ferry Road in the Woolston suburb of Central Christchurch.

5.5.3   The Park caters for both winter and summer organised sport (specifically football, rugby league and cricket) together with other passive and active recreational activities, notably children’s playground areas and basketball and tennis courts to the south east.

5.5.4   The park is currently utilised as a home venue for the Woolston Rams Rugby League Club and Cashmere Tech junior football teams during the winter months.

5.5.5   The grounds are also utilised as a venue for Lancaster Park Cricket Club who plays in the Christchurch Metropolitan Cricket Association competition during the summer months.

5.5.6   Woolston Park in an active and passive reserve in Central Christchurch where both pre and post-earthquake, sports field drainage issues have been evident resulting in sport fixture transfers and cancellation.

5.5.7   This year surface ponding on the western side adjacent to Te Waka Unua School and northern side under the grove of trees have also become an issue, where the Council closed the park in mid-June and since then have not reopened the park for public use.  The Rugby League Club were relocated to Bromley Park and Cashmere Tech were given fields at Hospital Corner to assist with the reduction in junior field availability.

5.5.8   Four  options considered costs are provided below:

Option

Cost

Option 1 Ground relevel re sow install swales

$400,838.00

Option 2 Ground relevel re sow, install irrigation and swales

$467,303.00

Option 3 Ground relevel re sow, install irrigation, subsoil drainage network, Gravel bands

$869,836.00

Option 4 Ground relevel re sow, install irrigation, subsoil drainage network and swales

$757,858.00

 

5.6       Woolston Park Playground Development

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

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

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

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

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

5.6.6   Capital funding for the construction of this playground has been approved in the Long Term Plan 2015 – 2028 for financial year 2017/2018 and 2018/2019

5.6.7   Three options have been explored for the playground drainage as below

Options

Cost

Regrading the area and path to allow with surface run off

$17,360.00

Install subsoil drainage system

$25,030.00

Install Sumps and storm water pipe to connect into storm water network

$43,690.00

 

5.7       Site Constraints

5.7.1   Assessment of site topography, recent aerial footage of the park and site observations indicate that the earthquake events of 2010 and 2011 have had a negative impact.

5.7.2   The site has fundamental physical constraints which need to be resolved/overcome as part of the development process. Historic use as a landfill leaving question marks in relation to future settlement and contamination status.

5.7.3   In order to achieve a satisfactory long term solution to the drainage issues at this park it is important that development options needs to be discussed.

 

6.   Preferred Option  1 – Approve the Land drainage option for Woolston Park and Playground

Option Description

6.1       This option will provide minimal soil movements. The project will introduction of a grass swale on the North and Western boundaries to deal with the ongoing issues of ponding within the park and the playground.

On the field the surface will be shaped to encourage water movement into the swale drainage to move water through the profile away from the surface between a rainfall event and the ability to utilise the field. The field will remain a soil based field with an automated irrigation system. Playground drainage estimates of $25,000.00 has been incorporated to the development of the fields.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Current Clubs and Regional Sport Organisations are affected due to possible delays or use of the field in the upcoming seasons (s). No public consultation has been sourced at this time.

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 –

6.7.1   Sports fields                          $467,303.00

6.7.2   Playground  drainage          $25,000.00

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No change - Operational costs already budgeted for.

6.9       Funding source –Capital Renewal

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    Risks 

6.12.1 Exposing contaminants from a closed landfill during excavation

6.12.2 Reluctance from sporting codes to give up  adequate time to complete the works

6.12.3 Inadequate funding

6.13    Mitigations

6.13.1         Environmental testing has been completed and nil contaminants have been identified.  The  preferred option has minimal ground disruption within its methodology

6.13.2 Comprehensive stakeholder engagement required between 3  sporting codes will be comprehensive and involve both community based clubs and Regional Sports agencies

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

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies  - Construction, Weather delays, Contractor availability 

6.16    Implementation timeframe –

·   Approvals – October 2018

·   Stakeholder Engagement  November/ December

·   Documentation 3rd Qtr FY19

·   Commence construction 3rd Qtr 2019 (subject to stakeholder engagement)

·   Available for use late spring 2019

·   Note the playground renewal will commence immediately if approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    Advantages

·    Provides a cost efficient approach to addressing issues across the whole park

·    Provides a minimal disruption to the historic landfill and therefore minimises risk

·    Incorporates irrigation to enable year round management of sports turf health for both winter and summer codes

·    Resolves water retention issues associated to the playground and historic trees

6.17.1 The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Risk of further land settlement

7.   Option 2 - Resurface the field with improvements being made to the irrigation and surface.

Option Description

7.1       As per option 1, however no  in ground irrigation would be installed

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Current Clubs and Regional Sport Organisations are specifically affected by this option due to possible delays or use of the field in the upcoming seasons (s). No public consultation has been sourced at this time.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation –

7.7.1   Sports fields                          $400,838.00

7.7.2   Playground  drainage          $25,000.00

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No change - Operational costs already budgeted for.

7.9       Funding source –Capital Renewal

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.12    Risks 

7.12.1 Exposing contaminants from a closed landfill during excavation

7.12.2 Reluctance from sporting codes to give up  adequate time to complete the works

7.12.3 Inadequate funding

7.13    Mitigations

7.13.1         Environmental testing has been completed and nil contaminants have been identified.  The  preferred option has minimal ground disruption within its methodology

7.13.2 Comprehensive stakeholder engagement required between 3  sporting codes will be comprehensive and involve both community based clubs and Regional Sports agencies

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

Implementation

7.15    Implementation dependencies  - Construction, Weather delays, Contractor availability 

7.16    Implementation timeframe –

·   Approvals – October 2018

·   Stakeholder Engagement  November/ December

·   Documentation 3rd Qtr FY19

·   Commence construction 3rd Qtr 2019 (subject to stakeholder engagement)

·   Available for use late spring 2019

·   Note the playground renewal will commence immediately if approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    Advantages

·    Provides the most cost efficient approach to addressing issues across the whole park

·    Provides a minimal disruption to the historic landfill and therefore minimises risk

·    Incorporates irrigation to enable year round management of sports turf health for both winter and summer codes

·    Resolves water retention issues associated to the playground and historic trees

7.17.1 The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Risk of further land settlement

·   Manual Irrigation is inefficient and a higher cost risk

8.   Option 3 – Introduce Gravel Banding Drainage into the park

8.1          Option Description

8.1       As per option 1 with the addition of a sub-surface drainage network incorporating a main drain and lateral drain system with intersecting gravel bands the system is designed to move water from the surface into the soil profile through the soil profile.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.5       Current Clubs and Regional Sport Organisations are specifically affected by this option due to possible delays or use of the field in the upcoming seasons (s). No public consultation has been sourced at this time.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.7       Cost of Implementation –

8.7.1   Sports fields                          $869,836.00

8.7.2   Playground  drainage          $25,000.00

8.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No change - Operational costs already budgeted for.

8.9       Funding source –Capital Renewal

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

8.12    Risks 

8.12.1 Exposing contaminants from a closed landfill during excavation note this option includes the greatest amount of excavation.

8.12.2 Reluctance from sporting codes to give up  adequate time to complete the works

8.12.3 Inadequate funding

8.13    Mitigations

8.13.1         Environmental testing has been completed and nil contaminants have been identified.  The  preferred option has minimal ground disruption within its methodology

8.13.2 Comprehensive stakeholder engagement required between 3  sporting codes will be comprehensive and involve both community based clubs and Regional Sports agencies

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

Implementation

8.15    Implementation dependencies  - Construction, Weather delays, Contractor availability 

8.16    Implementation timeframe

·   Approvals – October 2018

·   Stakeholder Engagement  November/ December 2018

·   Documentation 3rd Qtr FY19

·   Commence construction 3rd Qtr 2019 (subject to stakeholder engagement).

·   Available for use early 2020

·   Note the playground renewal will commence immediately if approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.17    Advantages

·    Incorporates irrigation to enable year round management of sports turf health for both winter and summer codes

·    Resolves water retention issues associated to the playground and historic trees

·    Provides a greater level of certainty for field usage in winter

8.17.1 The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Highest cost solution

·   Involves the highest amount of disruption to the historic landfill and therefore minimises risk

·   Risk of further land settlement causing damage to the sub -surface network

·   Risk of significant damage to the sub surface network in future earthquakes

9.   Option 4 – Introduce Gravel Banding Drainage into the park

9.1          This option is identical to option 3 without the intersecting gravel bands

Significance

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

9.2       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are low

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.3       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

9.4       Current Clubs and Regional Sport Organisations are specifically affected by this option due to possible delays or use of the field in the upcoming seasons (s). No public consultation has been sourced at this time.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.6       Cost of Implementation –

9.6.1   Sports fields                          $757,858.00

9.6.2   Playground  drainage          $25,000.00

9.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – No change - Operational costs already budgeted for.

9.8       Funding source –Capital Renewal

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

9.11    Risks 

9.11.1 Exposing contaminants from a closed landfill during excavation note this option includes the greatest amount of excavation.

9.11.2 Reluctance from sporting codes to give up  adequate time to complete the works

9.11.3 Inadequate funding

9.12    Mitigations

9.12.1         Environmental testing has been completed and nil contaminants have been identified.  The  preferred option has minimal ground disruption within its methodology

9.12.2 Comprehensive stakeholder engagement required between 3  sporting codes will be comprehensive and involve both community based clubs and Regional Sports agencies

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

Implementation

9.14    Implementation dependencies  - Construction, Weather delays, Contractor availability 

9.15    Implementation timeframe

·   Approvals – October 2018

·   Stakeholder Engagement  November/ December 2018

·   Documentation 3rd Qtr FY19

·   Commence construction 3rd Qtr 2019 (subject to stakeholder engagement).

·   Available for use early 2020

·   Note the playground renewal will commence immediately if approved.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.16    Advantages

·    Incorporates irrigation to enable year round management of sports turf health for both winter and summer codes

·    Resolves water retention issues associated to the playground and historic trees

·    Provides a greater level of certainty for field usage in winter

9.16.1 The disadvantages of this option include:

·   High Cost solution

·   Involves the highest amount of disruption to the historic landfill and therefore minimises risk

·   Risk of further land settlement causing damage to the sub -surface network

·   Risk of significant damage to the sub surface network in future earthquakes

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Woolston Park report

46

b

No 1 Sports field assesment

78

 

 

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

Grant Bunting - Team Leader Parks Sector South & Banks Peninsula

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

11.    Radley Park Landscape Plan

Reference:

18/954843

Presenter(s):

Fiona Greig, Landscape Architect and Tara King, Senior Engagement 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 approve the Radley Park Landscape Plan (refer attachment A).

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board’s resolution LCHB/2017/00114 from 31 July 2017.

Request a landscape concept plan for Radley Park that takes into account the dog exercise area, cycle ways and community gardens based on the Roimata Food Commons Trust concept plan.

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 using the engagement and significance matrix.  Staff have considered the significance of the decision to be made by the Community Board.  Their assessment is that the matter is of low significance for the following reasons:

2.1.2   There is a relatively minor cost for this project, as the budget is small.

2.1.3   Reversal or full restoration of the park is possible and not expected to be difficult to action.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

1.         Approve the Radley Park Landscape Plan as per Attachment A of this report.

2.         Recommends that Council approves the additional minor maintenance funding requirement of $ 107.61 for Radley Park be provided for in the Annual Plan commencing financial year 2020.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.0.3.0 Overall customer satisfaction with the presentation of the City’s Parks - Community Parks presentation: resident satisfaction =70 %

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 – Approve the landscape plan for Radley Park (preferred option).

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

4.3       Option Summary – Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Renewal of dog agility equipment that will include provision of equipment for small dog breeds to encourage more use of Radley Park.

·     Construction of a nature play area that will incorporate suitable trees being removed as part of nearby Heathcote River dredging

·     WSP Opus International Consultant Limited (WSP Opus) have volunteered their time to create the landscape plan alongside Roimata Food Commons Trust and Council, meaning there has been no cost to the ratepayer for the creation of this plan.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Small disruption of parts of the park during the construction period.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Radley Park is a local/community park of 2.5615 hectares situated alongside the Heathcote River in Woolston. It contains a playground, dog agility area, landscape and riparian plantings. A deputation was made to the Community Board on 14 June 2017 by members of the Roimata Food Commons Trust seeking support for the development of a community food hub within Radley Park.

5.2       Approval for the Roimata Food Commons Trust to plant 60 fruit trees on Radley Park was granted by the Head of Parks in August 2017 to enable the successful planting of donated trees at the correct time of year. This was on the understanding that an application for a formal licence under the Reserves Act 1977 for a separate community garden would be submitted in the near future.

5.3       Community concern about activities on Radley Park without wider consultation led to the Board resolving at its meeting on 31 July 2017 for staff to develop a landscape plan for Radley Park that takes into account the dog exercise area, cycle ways and community gardens based on the Roimata Community Garden concept.

5.4       The landscape plan was prepared by external consultants WPS Opus and includes an area for a community garden.

Community Consultation

5.5       Consultation on the Radley Park landscape plan was undertaken from 16 March 2018 to 18 April 2018.  Within the same consultation leaflet feedback was also sought on the Heathcote River dredging plans and the lease and license application from Roimata Food Commons Trust.  The Heathcote River dredging plans and the lease and license application have already been approved by the Community Board.  The landscape plan is the last portion of work that now requires approval.

5.6       The submission form for the landscape plan for Radley Park asked submitters to indicate whether yes – I/we support the plan, No – I/we do not support the plan or Yes – I/we support the plan but have some concerns.  Space was also available on the feedback form to comment on the landscape plan in relation to the dog agility area and proposed future works (nature play area, river connections, education centre structure and riparian planting).

5.7       Approximately 800 consultation leaflets (refer attachments B and C) were hand delivered to properties surrounding Radley Park, including 200 absentee owners.  This information was also emailed to 52 key stakeholders.  The project was posted on the Council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/132 and posted on the Council Facebook and Twitter pages.

5.8       The project team were available to discuss this project and answer any questions at the Woolston Gala on Sunday 25 March 2018 in Woolston Park.  The team spoke with approximately 30 people during this event.

5.9       At the close of consultation 64 submissions were received with 45 submitters supporting the plan, 14 who supported the plan but with some concerns, one submitter who did not support the plan and four submitters who did not indicate.

Yes – support the landscape plan

Yes – support the landscape plan but with concerns

No – do not support the landscape plan

Not indicated

Total

45 (70%)

14 (22%)

1 (2%)

4 (6%)

64 (100%)

 

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

Location submission came from

No. of submissions from this location

Percentage

Woolston

36

62%

Cracroft

3

4%

Linwood

2

3%

St Martins

2

3%

Waltham

2

3%

Yaldhurst

2

3%

Avonhead

1

2%

Brookhaven

1

2%

Frankton (Queenstown)

1

2%

Hillsborough

1

2%

Mairehau

1

2%

Mt Pleasant

1

2%

Redcliffs

1

2%

Redwood

1

2%

Richmond

1

2%

South Brighton

1

2%

Sumner

1

2%

 

 

 

Total

58

100%

 

5.11    The majority of submissions have been received from Woolston (62%).

5.12    In relation to the age of those who submitted (for those who provided an age), this can be summarised as:

Age bracket

No. of submissions

Percentage

25 – 49 years

22

58%

50 – 64 years

16

42%

 

 

 

Total

38

100%

 

5.13    In relation to gender of those who submitted(for those who provided a gender), this can be summarised as:

Gender

No. of submissions

Percentage

Female

29

52%

Male

27

48%

 

 

 

Total

56

100%

 

5.14    All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.  All submissions with names but without address and contact details are available publicly online at https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/132

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


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve the landscape plan for Radley Park (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       To approve the landscape plan for Radley Park as shown in Attachment A. The proposed plan consists of the following:

6.1.1   Renewal of the dog agility equipment, which will include the provision of dog agility equipment for smaller dog breeds.

6.1.2   Construction of a nature play area near the existing playground. The project team are investigating using trees that have been removed as part of the Heathcote River dredging project for the nature play area.

6.1.3   Installation of the new solar charge table near the existing playground.

6.1.4   Installation of a new drinking fountain which will have a bottle filler and dog bowl, in the cycleway threshold area at the Cumnor Terrace entrance

6.1.5   The landscape plan includes the approved lease area for Roimata Food Commons Trust (400m2).

6.2       The widening of the existing path for shared use is a future project to be considered and is currently unfunded.  When funding becomes available the Community Board will be notified.

6.3       The future educational structure for the lease area is currently unfunded. It will require a separate approval process (potentially a change to the lease or licence and subject to consenting process) and is not part of the approval for this project.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

6.6       Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT) have been provided with all the information on this project. The project team had not received specific information from MKT at the time of writing this report.

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       Park users are specifically affected by this option due to the minor disruption the physical works will have when work on the upgrade of the dog agility area, installation of the nature play area and as tree removal works take place.

6.8       The Roimata Food Commons group are specifically affected by this option, as they have been working with staff in relation to their future plans for the park which have been included in the landscape plan. 

6.9       Please refer to sections 5.5 – 5.8 which discusses how affected parties were made aware of this project.

Landscape plan

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

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Dog agility area

7

14971, 14882, 14110, 13201, 12920, 14112, 14883

Nature play area

6

14882, 14104, 12922, 13172, 14834, 14883

Requests for additional items

5

14882, 14106, 14104, 12920, 14896,

Outdoor educational centre

3

14882, 14104, 14883

Solar table

2

14552, 14940

 

Themes from those who support the landscape plan

6.11    The common themes around supporting the landscape plan at Radley Park relate to the dog agility area, nature play area, requests for additional items, the outdoor educational centre and the solar table.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.12    Dog agility area

6.12.1 There were seven submitters who specifically commented on the dog agility area.  These comments were in relation to fencing the dog agility area and not allowing dogs to access the river to protect birdlife (two comments), including a water fountain for people and dogs (two comments), supporting the upgrade of the dog agility equipment and suggesting refurbishment of the existing equipment (two comments).

6.12.2 “I don’t personally use the dog park but it is a good idea and I do see others using it.  $5,000 budget – use money to re-stain current wood and repair current pet show signs attached to wood dog play stations”.  Submitter ID # 14112.

6.12.3 There would be a considerable cost in installing fencing, for which there is no funding available. Radley Park is a Dog Exercise Area as per Council’s Dog Control Policy 2016, meaning the area is known to be a good and safe place to exercise dogs without the same infrastructure and equipment as a dog park.

6.12.4 We agree that a drinking fountain is a good idea in the park and have included it in the updated landscape plan.

6.12.5 The condition of the majority of the existing equipment isn’t suitable for refurbishment, we are proposing to replace these with dog agility items for small and large dog breeds.

6.13    Nature play area

6.13.1 There were six submitters who specifically commented on the nature play area.  These comments were in relation to using trees from the dredging project to build the nature play area (two comments), suggesting placing the nature play area at the other end of the park near the community gardens (one comment), support for the nature play area (four comments) and the nature play area should happen sooner (one comment).

6.13.2 “A nature play area would be a massive asset to our community.  Our children need more safe environments where they can explore, play and interact with the natural environment”.  Submitter ID # 13172.

6.14    Requests for additional items

6.14.1 There were five submitters who requested additional items.  These items included toilets (two comments), wooden platform to walk out to the river (one comment), restoration of the old footbridge (two comments), basketball court (one comment) and a plan that included the river and the opposite banks (one comment).

6.14.2 “Also replacing the old foot bridge would be amazing”.  Submitter ID # 14104.

6.14.3 Installation of a toilet block is outside the scope of this project and there is no funding to install one.  Toilet blocks are normally installed in Council sports parks, as opposed to local parks.

6.14.4 In relation to the wooden platform, the intention is to consider river access in the future when funding becomes available.

6.14.5 The installation of a new footbridge is also outside the scope of this project, but has been included in the Ferry Road Master Plan.  At this stage the project is unfunded.

6.14.6 Installing a half basketball court is outside the scope of this project, however can be considered in future long term plans. There is a half basketball court at Woolston Park, which is just over 1 km away.

6.14.7 There is a separate project covering future works in the wider area including the waterway and banks, it is in the very early stages of being created. 

6.15    Outdoor educational centre

6.15.1 There were three comments relating to the outdoor educational centre.  These comments relate to what the centre could include (one comment) and support for the centre (two comments).

6.15.2 “…I support the Roimata Food Commons Landscape Proposal.  This includes…..education centre structure”.  Submitter ID # 14883.

6.16    Solar table

6.16.1 There were two comments relating to the solar table that is being proposed for installation.  These comments related to the table only encouraging the use of electronic devices in the park but also of it being a way of encouraging people into the area.

6.16.2 “I understand why the proposed solar charging area may be topical, but it does speak to the current reality and, most importantly, will be another reason for people to connect with the area”.  Submitter ID # 14940.

6.16.3 The solar table is available to be installed from an existing site, so is at no cost to this project.  The intention behind the solar table is to provide some resilience in the community, as it is a way for people to charge their devices in a natural disaster, when they are without power.

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

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Solar table

8

14423, 14103, 14881, 13962, 13692, 14813, 13376, 14866

Request for additional items

5

14944, 14113, 14783, 14108, 13376,

Dog agility area

5

13112, 14944, 14813, 13376, 14866

 

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

6.18    The common themes around supporting the concept plan but having some concerns at Radley Park relate to the proposed solar table, requests for additional items and the dog agility area.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.19    Solar table

6.19.1 There were eight comments relating to the solar table.  These comments relate to not supporting the installation of this table (seven comments) and one submitter who supported the installation of the table.

6.19.2 “The solar cell phone charging facility at the Children’s playground has no place in a family friendly area – people have plenty of power points at home and the whole idea of being outside is to connect with the children/others walking by and not the kindle or cell phone for just an hour or so!!!”.  Submitter # 14881.

6.19.3 Please refer to previous comments in section 6.16 in relation to the solar table.

6.20    Requests for additional items

6.20.1 There were five comments relating to requests for additional items.  This included an adult adventure area (one comment), dedicated open space areas for kite flying, rugby, cricket etc. (two comments), sealed shortcut for cyclists (one comment), upgrade of existing play equipment (one comment) and paving of the existing path (one comment).

6.20.2 “Please include a couple of dedicated open spaces for people to play games/sports/etc. in e.g. between the dog park and the children’s playground as this is used by people to throw balls, play games, fly kites (yes) etc.”.  Submitter ID # 14944.

6.20.3 An adult adventure area is outside the scope of this project and there is no funding available for this.

6.20.4 Radley Park doesn’t have the space to provide dedicated areas for flying kites or ball games. Nearby Woolston Park which is a larger sports park, is better suited to this type of activities.

6.20.5 The current play equipment in the park is not due for renewal for approximately 10 years.  The renewal program is based on the lifespan and condition of the equipment.  New play equipment would need to be considered as part of that future project.

6.20.6 Sealing and widening of the footpath to better accommodate wheelchairs and prams in the park would need to be considered as funding becomes available.

6.21    Dog agility area

6.21.1 There were five comments in relation to the dog agility area.  These comments related to dog poo disposal facilities and appropriate signage (two comments), supporting the upgrade of the dog agility area (two comments), supporting the inclusion of extra dog agility items (one comment), dog agility equipment not used (one comment) and the dog agility area being too close to the playground (one comment).

6.21.2 “The dog area is used by people and their dogs and also just by people.  Extra dog agility items would be great especially if there are $ available”.  Submitter ID #14944.

6.21.3 The existing park entrance signs indicate that Radley Park is a recommended space to exercise dogs off-leash. There is an existing litter bin located in the Dog Exercise Area.

6.21.4 The updated landscape plan now has the nature play area moved further away from the dog agility area.

6.22    There was only one submitter who indicated they do not support landscape plan, the comments were about:

Themes from those who do not support the landscape plan

6.23    The one submitter who did not support the landscape plan commented:

6.23.1 “The dog agility park is adequate already.  Too much of the land has already been taken out for orchard trees. ”.  Submitter ID # 14969.

6.23.2 The renewal of the dog agility equipment will not take up any more of the park than it currently occupies.

6.24    For those who did not indicate specifically whether they supported the landscape plan, the most common comments were about:

Type of comment

Number of comments

Submitter ID #

Support dog agility area

1

13727

Trees

2

13727, 13261

Generally support the plan

1

13261

 

Comments from those who did not indicate specifically whether they support the concept plan:

6.25    The common themes from those who did not indicate a preference relate to supporting the dog agility area, tree replacements, native tress and support for the plan in general.  The project team comments in relation to these are as follows (where relevant).

6.26    Dog agility area

6.26.1 There was one comment in support of the dog agility area.

6.26.2 “yes to dogs No No No to anything else”.  Submitter ID # 13727.

6.27    Trees

6.27.1 There were two comments made in relation to trees.  One comment was in relation to the tree replacement planting and one comment suggesting that a ribbon of native trees are planted in Radley Park.

6.27.2 “..of course you’ll need to replace trees that’s a given not those horrible tussock grasses either”.  Submitter ID # 13727.

6.28    General support of the plan

6.28.1 There was one submitter who while they did not specifically indicate on the feedback form whether they supported the landscape plan, they did however comment that the group generally supported it.

6.28.2 “In general we support the proposed work but we offer feedback on the draft plan”.  Submitter ID # 13261.

6.28.3 In summary across all of the submissions (64) relating to the landscape plan for Radley Park, the most common themes were in relation to the dog agility area, requests for additional items, the solar table and the nature play area.

Changes made following consultation

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

6.29.1 The nature play area has been moved closer to the main playground, to provide better separation from the dog agility area.

6.29.2 The renewal of the dog agility area will include some new equipment for smaller dog breeds.

6.29.3 A drinking fountain has been included that can be used for people or for dogs.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.30.1 Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

6.30.2 Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles

Financial Implications

6.31    Cost of Implementation – the cost of implementing the current landscape plan is approximately $60,000 (excluding cost of the installation of the drinking fountain and the installation of the solar table refer below).

6.32    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – based on 2018 rates the annual maintenance cost will increase by $107.61.

6.33    Funding source –

·   Dog Agility Equipment $20,000 in financial year 2019 from CPMS 43693 – Delivery Package Playspace Renewal.

·   Nature Play Area, $40,000 in financial year 2019 from CPMS 43676 – Delivery Package Play and Recreation Development.

·   Drinking Fountain supply and installation – funded through the Heathcote Expressway Cycleway project.

·   Install of solar table – funded through Enliven Places Programme, Urban Regeneration

·   Widening of existing path – unfunded

·   Educational Centre - unfunded

Legal Implications

6.34    Radley Dog Exercise Area is listed in the Council’s Dog Control Policy 2016. A Dog Exercise Area varies from a listed Dog Park, it’s generally unfenced, known to be a good and safe place to exercise dogs and may have agility equipment.

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

6.36    The need for any resource consents for the nature play area will be confirmed during detailed design.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.37    There is a risk that obtaining any consents that may be required for the nature play area could delay the implementation timeframe. 

Implementation

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

6.39    Implementation timeframe –

·   Community Board Approval October 2018

·   Detailed Design, obtaining consents (if required), ordering equipment and tendering – November 2018 to March 2019

·   Construction– April to May 2019

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.40    The advantages of this option include:

·   Renewal of dog agility equipment that will include provision of equipment for small dog breeds to encourage more used of Radley Park.

·   Construction of a nature play area that will incorporate suitable trees being removed as part of nearby Heathcote River dredging.

·   WSP Opus have volunteered their time to create the landscape plan alongside Roimata Food Commons Trust and Council, meaning there has been no cost to the ratepayer for the creation of this plan.

6.41    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Small disruption of parts of the park during the construction period.

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

Option Description

7.1       The landscape plan (refer attachment A) is not approved and the Community Board request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Significance

7.2       The level of significance of this option is 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. 

7.4       Mahaanui Kurataiao Limited (MKT) would be provided information on this project, so they have an opportunity to comment if Council re-consulted with the community.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       Park users and the Roimata Food Commons Trust are specifically affected by this option.  Roimata Food Commons Trust support the landscape plan being approved and have worked with staff in relation to their future plans for the park.

7.6       At the close of consultation 64 submissions were received with 45 submitters supporting the plan and 14 who supported the plan but with some concerns.

7.7       There was only one submitter during the consultation period that specifically did not support the landscape plan and this option would not deliver the required asset renewal of the dog agility area.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

7.7.1   n/a

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – additional cost to re-design and engage with the community.

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – if agility equipment deteriorates further, there could be a cost to repair or remove items if there is a risk of injury.

7.10    Funding source –

·   Cost to re-design is unfunded.

Legal Implications

7.11    Radley Dog Exercise Area is listed in the Council’s Dog Control Policy 2016. A Dog Exercise Area varies from a listed Dog Park, it’s generally unfenced, known to be a good and safe place to exercise dogs and may have agility equipment.

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.13    Not removing or replacing the dog agility equipment runs a risk of injury to dogs and their owners.

7.14    The re-design of the landscape plan is currently unfunded. How this will be funded needs to be established promptly to avoid delaying timeframes.

Implementation

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

7.16    Implementation timeframe –

·   Redesign landscape plan – October to November 2018.

·   Community Board Seminar – November 2018.

·   Community Engagement – February 2019.

·   Community Board Approval – March 2019.

·   Detailed design, obtaining consents (if required), ordering equipment and tendering April to May 2019.

·   Construction – June 2019.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.17    The advantages of this option include:

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

7.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Not removing or replacing the dog agility equipment runs a risk of injury to dogs and their owners.

·   Increased design fees (Opus may not be able to do the design work in a volunteer capacity for a second landscape plan), may result in less budget being available for the nature play area or dog agility area (or alternatively, more budget may be required to complete the project).

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Radley Park Landscape Plan for Community Board Approval

178

b

Radley Park consultation leaflet

179

c

Radley Park feedback form

185

 

 

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

Tara King - Senior Engagement Advisor

Fiona Greig - Landscape Architect

Joanne Walton - Policy Advisor

Megan Carpenter - Planner Recreation

Bridie Gibbings - Team Leader Parks Sector North

Approved By

Bridie Gibbings - Team Leader Parks Sector North

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

12.    Application to Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Youth Development Fund - Scarlett Ruby Girvan

Reference:

18/1029341

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(s) received for funding from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently a balance of $3,100 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Board to consider an application of funding from Scarlett Girvan.

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 $200 from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund to Scarlett Girvan towards representing Canterbury at the Gymsports NZ Nationals competition in rhythmic gymnastics in Tauranga from 2 to 6 October 2018.

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Scarlett Ruby Girvan

4.1       Scarlett Ruby Girvan is an eleven year old resident of Redcliffs and a year seven student at Selwyn House School. She has been selected to represent Canterbury at the Gymsports NZ Nationals competition in rhythmic gymnastics in Tauranga from 2 to 6 October 2018.

4.2       Gymsport NZ Nationals is an event held once a year for New Zealand’s top 20 athletes from each division/age group. Qualification is by attending/competing at events all over New Zealand throughout the year. Scarlett is a Level 5 competitor and qualified first place in New Zealand's top 20 competitors allowed to compete at this event.

4.3       Scarlett has participated in this sport for five years and trains three days a week for three hours per session in Wigram. She is a Level 5 gymnast and competes in apparatus, clubs, hoop and free. She has won competitions this year in Manukau, Wellington, Otago, South Island and Canterbury.  She also won all three apparatus at Adelaide, South Australia State Championships.  Last year Scarlett won first place rope, second place ribbon at Gymsports NZ Nationals for Level 4. Scarlett dreams of representing Christchurch and New Zealand in her sport at NZ/ Australasian events and Common Wealth Games.

4.4       Scarlett is a Year 7 student at Selwyn House School where she is also involved with future problem solving, robocup, senior chamber choir, jump jam, netball, peer mediation, reading, and performing arts.

4.5       Group fundraising activities have included two movie nights, an airport clean-up, bonus ball raffle, sausage sizzle, book sale, and supervising the weetbix triathalon course. Approximately $8,000 for 27 competitors has been raised.  This has provided $300 per competitor for rental car, accommodation and coaches’ costs.

4.6       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Scarlett Ruby Girvan to represent Canterbury at the Gymsports NZ Nationals competition in rhythmic gymnastics in Tauranga from 2 to 6 October 2018:

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Return airfares Christchurch to Auckland

144

Rental car Auckland to Tauranga

100

NZ Nationals Fee

190

Jacket hire

20

Accommodation for five days

150

Food for five days

150

Coaches cost

50

Mother’s cost to travel with Scarlett (accommodation, rental car, flights)

394

                                                                                                 Total

$1,198

 

4.7       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

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

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

Reference:

18/931447

Presenter(s):

Matt McLintock, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

This report provides information on initiatives and issues current within the Community Board area, to provide the Board with a strategic overview and inform sound decision making.

2.   Staff Recommendations 

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

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

2.         Consider submitting on the Council’s Draft Heritage Strategy 2019-2029 and Draft Suburban Parking Policy.

3.         Consider items for inclusion for the Board Report to the Council’s 1 November 2018 meeting.

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Rudds Road - At the Board’s 28 May 2018 meeting the Board requested in relation to Rudds Road:

Requested staff advice on the potential for more berm planting to deter parking on berms.

Staff Advice:

At the moment there is nothing planned for new gardens or shrub plantings on existing turf assets on Rudd’s,  staff are currently working through the renewal of empty garden beds around the city as our first priority at this stage.

 

3.1.2   Drinking Fountains – At the Board’s 19 September 2018 meeting the Board made the following resolution:

Approve a grant of $13,244 from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2018/19 Discretionary Fund for the installation of drinking fountains at Bromley and Waltham Parks, and inform the Board of the actual location of the fountains within the parks.

Staff Advice:

Please refer to the drinking fountain locations in the attached memorandum (Attachment A).  The locations mitigate the cost to connect to the water connection on the street and the length of pipework required.

3.1.3   Woolston Cut Reinstatement of Landscaping – At the Board’s 1 October 2018 meeting the Board discussed the reinstatement of the greenspace areas adjacent to the Woolston Cut post dredging.  A verbal update on the site visit held on Friday 12 October will be given at the meeting.

 

3.1.4   Board Priorities Action Updates – at the Board’s 2 October 2017 meeting the Board requested staff to list on each Area Report progress on specific Board Projects and Action Requests.  (Attachment B).

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

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

Deciding the Future of Batches at Taylors Mistake and Bays

3 October to 21 October 2018

Draft Heritage Strategy 2019-2029

10 October to 12 November 2018

Draft Suburban Parking Policy

17 October to 21 November 2018

·     The Board is asked to consider if the Board is to submit the Draft Heritage Strategy.  Submissions close on 12 November 2018.

·     The Board is asked to consider if the Board is to submit the Draft Suburban Parking Policy.  Submissions close on 21 November 2018.

3.3       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.3.1   Long Term Plan 2018-2028

The following link outlines the recommendations that were adopted in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/06/CLTP_20180622_MIN_2843_AT.PDF.

3.4       Board Reporting

3.4.1   Board members are invited at the Board’s monthly seminar to suggest any items the Board would like highlighted for inclusion in the Board’s monthly Newsletter and Newsline releases.

3.4.2   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in the Board Report to the Council.

4.   Community Board Plan – Update against Outcomes

4.1       The Board held a workshop on Tuesday 16 October to review the Community Board Plan.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Light Bulb Moment Fund recipients Hagley College Choir have provided the following feedback to the Community Board:

Referring to the grant from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Light Bulb Moment fund the Choir wish to thank the Board for their consideration and contribution to the College Choir obtaining t-shirts.  You can see in the photo how smart the 40 strong choir look!  They have performed a number of times including at the Canterbury –wide Voices Festival.

Thank you once again.  Darryl Low, Arts Co-ordinator.

 

 

5.2       Other partnerships with the community and organisations

5.2.1   Transitional Use of Red Zone Land in the Bays Area

In September 2018 the Mt Pleasant, Redcliffs and Sumner Residents’ Associations held a community meeting on the transitional use of Crown-owned red zone land in the Port Hills. More than 50 residents attended to discuss ideas and how they would like to be involved.

             Interested residents are currently developing proposals for community use of red zone land in the Bays area to submit to Land Information New Zealand for consideration. These initiatives will be umbrellaed by the relevant Residents Association.

5.3       Community Facilities (updates and future plans)

5.3.1   Ōpāwa Volunteer Library Rebuild – At the time of writing this report there is no further update since the previous Area Report. Please refer to the timeline below:

8 August

The Request for Proposal package was issued to the construction market as a Design and Build method of contract delivery.

3 October

Proposals will be due from contractors.

October (date TBC)

A Staff Evaluation Panel will score proposals.

October (date TBC)

The Working Group will make a recommendation on which proposal to accept.

29 October

The Community Board will consider the proposals and the Working Group’s recommendation, and decide which to accept.

2 November

The contract will be awarded.

The Working Group and Community Board will continue to be updated on a monthly basis throughout the construction phase.

5.4       Infrastructure projects underway

5.4.1   Linwood Pool - The full team to develop a Concept Design, prepare tender material for a Design and Build contract, and provide construction monitoring for the Linwood Pool has now been engaged. 

This team has commenced review of available information and planning for design progression, and we are presently detailing a programme which will include identifying key feedback points with the Community Board and wider community, and ultimately lead to finalisation of the Concept Design as approved by the Board.  Once timing is confirmed for these engagement opportunities, stakeholders will be advised.

 

The gifting of a te reo name for the facility has been requested via Council's Ngāi Tahu Partnership team, and we will advise the Board once this is received.  The name will feed into the cultural design input which Matapopore have been engaged to provide.

 

Staff have been engaging directly with some key stakeholders and will continue to do so as the project commences.  Site surveys and further geotechnical investigations will soon occur on site.  Notice will be provided to stakeholders before the geotech works commence.

 

Signage will soon be erected on site, promoting the project and advising website details for further information.

 

5.4.2   Heathcote Dredging Update – a staff memorandum is attached updating the Board of the current construction programme and project status for lower Heathcote River Dredging Project.  (Attachment C).

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

 

6.1       Events Report Back

6.1.1   The Breeze Walking Festival from 29 September to 14 October offered 50 free walks with a range of easy, medium and challenging routes.  Many of the walks combined the chance to learn more about nature, culture, history and new developments around our city and region.  The opening weekend saw over 200 dogs and nearly 500 companions take part in the popular feature walk 'Dogs Day Out' that began with a guided scenic walk in the Heathcote Valley followed by the opportunity to explore Ferrymead Heritage Park at leisure with tram rides, free micro chipping for Christchurch registered dogs, and lots of treats for dog lovers of all ages.

 

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

7.1       Local Parks Update

7.1.1   Spring sports turf renovations are now complete.

7.1.2   The Metrological Office has predicted warm temperatures ranging from mid to late teens, with less rainfall, through to November. This prediction may influence weed and turf growth rates.

7.1.3   Contract key performance: Recreational Services

September 2018

Quality: 89%

7.2       Scheduled Parks Maintenance Programme for September:

Activity

Frequency per month

Ornamental Mowing

4

Amenity Mowing

3

Informal Mowing

0

Garden Amenity Maintenance

0.1

Winter Sport Mowing

2

Hedge Pruning

0.2

Cricket Block Maintenance

2

Winter Sport Line Marking

1

Chemical Weed Control

1

Ornamental Garden Maintenance

2

BBQ Clean

2

Drinking Fountain Clean

4

 

7.3       Breakdown of KPI scores by activity September 2018

 

7.4       Volunteer Activity:

7.4.1   Student Volunteer Army - The Student Volunteer Army had a big clean-up event in the Cemeteries. I have copied the thank-you email received from them which gives you the details:

“Kia ora, 

Thank you so much for supporting the University of Canterbury Student Volunteer Army for the Community Guardians Connect the Community: Linwood.  We had an amazing turn out with approximately 250 volunteers contributing to 500 hours of volunteer work. This is worth $8,250.00 of minimum wage work. 

This year we finished 9 projects across the Linwood and Philipstown community. We then rewarded the volunteers with a free BBQ provided to us by Hellers and Mediaworks, a concert with performances by the Raddlers, and family friendly entertainment such as face painting and bouncy castles thanks to Happyhire and M.A.S.H. This was held at Linwood Avenue Primary with extra logistical equipment provided by the University of Canterbury and HireKING.

We would like to thank all our sponsors, especially Citycare Group, Christchurch City Council, Community Guardians, and ECAN as this event could not happen without them. Thank you to the Student Volunteer Army Foundation for the support you provide us throughout the year.  

Finally we would like to thank the Linwood and Philipstown community for having us. It has been a joy to work with you all.

Nga mihi, The SVA Events Team”

7.4.2   Drayton Reserve – This group has a twice a month working bee. Planting started in April, and the final planting was at the end of August. In total approx. 1,400 plants have gone in the ground, all by the locals. For September the working bees have concentrated on mulching the plants and releasing around the seedlings.

7.4.3   Thistledown Reserve – Once a month working bee, continuing with weeding, and removing willow, and cutting back harakeke. We also added some Kahikatea plantings last month.

7.4.4   Sumner Gardening Group – The Sumner gardening group continue to meet once a month. Mostly weeding, light pruning and picking up litter. This group has now been handing over to the Regional Parks Rangers to manage.

7.4.5   Laura Kent Reserve – This group meet once a month. The last working bee was spreading mulch to keep the weeds down in the new planting areas. The river was recently dredged, and some large trees were removed for the digger to gain access. This has opened up some areas for potential new planting for next season.

7.4.6   Heathcote Domain – The Bowling Club were keen to assist with a planting project to enhance the outlook from their club to the Domain. We planted the embankment to the south of the Bowling Club with approx. 200 native plant species. We had a turnout of around 16 Bowling Club members.

7.4.7   Barnett Park – At its 3 August 2018 meeting the Board received a draft landscape plan for Barnett Park, which was developed by an external landscape architect engaged by the community on a pro bono basis. Staff advised that developing and consulting on a landscape plan for Barnett Park is not included in the Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) 2018/28 and will need to be considered for funding in the next LTP.

Staff are currently working with the community to investigate options to improve Barnett Park that do not require a landscape plan.

8.   Community Board Funding Update

8.1       The funding report will be tabled at the meeting.

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Locations of Drinking Fountains

197

b

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Priorities Actions Updates - October 2018

203

c

Lower Heathcote River Dredging Project Update - September 2018

206

 

Signatories

Authors

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Trevor Cattermole - Community Development Advisor

Rosie Carroll - Support Officer

Amy Hart - Community Development Advisor

Gail Payne - Community Development Advisor

Diana Saxton - Community Recreation Advisor

Approved By

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

17 October 2018

 

 

14.  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.