Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 3 October 2018

Time:                                    1.30pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

27 September 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brent Smith

Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8645

 

Sarah Drummond

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6262

sarah.drummond@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/

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

Councillor Livingstone (Deputy Chair), Councillor Chen, Councillor Galloway, Councillor Keown, Councillor Johanson, Councillor Scandrett

Quorum

Half of the members if the number of members (including vacancies) is even, or a majority of members if the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

The focus of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee is matters relating to social and community wellbeing.

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

·      Seeks to address cultural, social and economic disadvantage and  promote equity for all citizens

·      Works in partnerships with key agencies, organisations and communities of place, identity and interest

·      Is innovative and creative in the ways it contributes to social and community wellbeing

 

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committte considers and reports to Council on issues and activites relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection

·      Housing across the continuum of social, affordable and market housing, including innovative housing solutions that will increase the supply of affordable housing

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

·      Parks (sports, local, metropolitan and regional), gardens, cemeteries, open spaces and the public realm

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

·      Civil defence and rural fire management including disaster planning and local community resilience plans

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and  support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Civic and International Relations

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

The Council delegates to the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee authority to:

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications up to a value of $150,000.

§  Approve extensions of up to two years for the uptake of Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

The Committee delegates to the following subcommittees or working groups the responsibility to consider and report back to the Committee:

·      Safer Communities Council for matters relating to Safety and Crime Prevention, including Family Violence 

·      Housing Subcommittee for matters relating to housing as stated in its terms of reference

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the Multicultural Strategy

·      International Relations Working Group on matters relating to international relations

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 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.......................................................................................................................... 6

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

C       3.       Confirmation of Previous Minutes................................................................................. 6

B       4.       Public Forum.................................................................................................................... 6

B       5.       Deputations by Appointment........................................................................................ 6

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

Housing Subcommittee

C       7.       Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 September 2018.............................................. 13

Staff Reports

A       8.       Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square...................................................................................... 31

A       9.       Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch.................................................................. 45

A       10.     Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)............................................... 59

A       11.     Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House........................ 101

A       12.     Spire Sculpture - Licence to Occupy Latimer Square............................................... 113

A       13.     Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Christchurch Botanic Gardens.... 119

C       14.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch.............. 133

C       15.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 201 High Street, Christchurch................... 145

C       16.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.......... 155

C       17.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour. 167

C       18.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa......................... 189

C       19.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch............ 199

C       20.     Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton....................... 209

B       21.     Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update October 2018................................ 219

C       22.     Resolution to Exclude the Public............................................................................... 237  

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

1.   Apologies

An apology for leave of absence was received from Councillor Livingstone.

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 Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 5 September 2018  be confirmed (refer page 7).

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.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

6.   Petitions

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 5 September 2018

Time:                                    1.30pm

Venue:                                 Council Chamber, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

4 September 2018

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

John Filsell

Head Community Support, Governance and Partnerships
Tel: 941 8303

 

Sarah Drummond

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6262

sarah.drummond@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

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00056

Committee Decision

That the apology from Councillor Keown be accepted and Councillor Chen and Johanson for Lateness .

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00057

Committee Decision

That the open and public excluded minutes  of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday 4 April and Wednesday, 1 August 2018 be confirmed.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

Emma Twaddell gave a public forum presentation to the Committee, the Committee thanked Emma for her presentation

 

Hamish Keown – Christchurch Youth Workers Collective, presented a verbal briefing to update the Committee on the activities of the Collective, as well as the changes in the SYS Project.

 

Note: The Committee asks that staff consider how youth be engaged in the development and design of the proposed stadium and that this consideration be included when Council is briefed on progress by way of a memorandum.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1

Town Hall History and Acoustics

Dr Ian Lochhead will speak to the Committee regarding the history of the Town Hall and its acoustic features

Part B

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Thanks Dr Lochhead  for his deputation.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

Report from Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - 3 August 2018

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

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00058

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

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

2.         Writes a congratulatory letter to be sent to Dame Catherine Healy congratulating her on her recognition in the Queens’ Birthday Honours list.

Councillor Clearwater/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

8.   Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 15 June 2018

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00059

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the open and public excluded Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 15 June 2018.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

9.   Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 13 August 2018

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00060

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the open and public excluded Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 13 August 2018.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

10. Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 20 August 2018

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00061

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 20 August 2018.

Councillor Scandrett/Councillor Galloway                                                                                                         Carried

 

11. Progress report on the CCC Smokefree 2025 Action Plan implementation

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00062

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the report.

2.         Note that the next progress report will be provided to the Committee in July 2019.

3.         Request staff to update the Smokefree Public Places Policy on the webpage corresponding to the recent developments and decisions of the Council to extend the Policy to include Council-owned footpaths used for outdoor dining.

4.       Request staff to work with Community & Public Health CDHB and the Cancer Society to work with groups whose smoking rates are not declining. Any resulting actions to be included in the Action Plan.

Councillor Livingstone/Councillor Chen                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

12. Staff Verbal Update on a New Process for Heritage Incentive Grants

 

Brendan Smyth provided a verbal update to the Committee on the new process for allocating Heritage Incentive Grants.

 

13. Capital Delivery Major Facilities - Elected Member Updates & Lancaster Park Demolition Project Brief

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2018/00063

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Capital Delivery Major Facilities Elected Member Update Report, and the Lancaster Park Demolition Project Brief.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

14. Council endorsement of Christchurch City Libraries' Content Development Policy

 

Committee Decisions under Delegation

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Endorse Christchurch City Libraries' Content Development Policy

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 3.24PM.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

 

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

7.        Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 September 2018

Reference:

18/960299

Presenter(s):

Sarah Drummond, Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Housing Subcommittee held a meeting on 10 September 2018 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 10 September 2018.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Minutes Housing Subcommittee - 10 September 2018

14

b

Housing Subcommittee Minutes Attachments 10 September 2018

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Sarah Drummond - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

8.        Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square

Reference:

18/909362

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building at 31 Cathedral Square, Christchurch, more commonly known as the Former Chief Post Office Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to dialogue with the owner of the building who wishes to see the building repaired, seismically upgraded and renovated internally and externally.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.      Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Former Chief Post Office Building, 31 Cathedral Square.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $900,000 (preferred option);

·  Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of up to $600,000.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

1.1.2              The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building for an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will be likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

  

Photographs of the East Façade in 2012, left, and the North Façade in 2018, right.

Brief History

5.1       The detached commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as 'Highly Significant'. The building is registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) Category I (register number 291). See the attached ‘Statement of Heritage Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was designed by the only architect ever to hold the title of Colonial Architect for New Zealand, W.H. Clayton and built between 1877 and 1879. Sadly Clayton died prior to the building’s completion and the project was overseen and amended to include an extension on the west end by P. Burrows, an assistant architect in the same firm. It was originally designed as a Government Building and included the Post Office but with the completion of the larger Government Buildings across the Square in 1913 the principal occupant of the building became the Chief Post Office. The building remained in use with the Post Office until the late 20th Century when the Post Office was split into three separate entities. The building was sold at this time and is now in private ownership.

5.3       The building was designed in the Italianate Style with elements of Venetian Gothic. The façade materials are predominantly red brick and stone masonry with arched windows, including pointed arch decoration on the first floor, window columns, ornate gables and projecting bands of carved stonework. The original main entrance was located beneath the clock tower element on the East Façade. This tower has multiple clock faces and the three dimensional full colour Government coat of arms. Within the tower there is the original cast iron bell which chimed regularly up until the earthquakes. The roof is currently clad with asbestos fibre cement corrugated panels which replaced the original roofing material at some point after the Second World War.

5.4       The building was altered substantially at the time of the splitting up of the Post Office, with a small part in the southern wing being demolished to allow for the construction of the 1992 brown coloured Telecom building on Hereford Street. The bulk of the original interior was largely removed at this time and a pedestrian link installed to Hereford Street under the Telecom tower. However, the remaining overall form, the principal facades and the ground floor were retained as was the small rear courtyard. The building was structurally upgraded at this time with steel bracing being attached to the internal faces of the masonry walls and within the roof and clock tower. The new steel work was connected down to the existing foundations.

5.5       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade work done in the early 1990’s performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired. The building has been vacant since this time but has been secured with exterior fencing and plywood to the lower floor windows and doors. However, there is still considerable risk to the building from illegal entry and continuing deterioration from lack of occupation and necessary maintenance.

5.6       The applicant for the grant is the current owner, ‘Crystal Imports Limited’. The owner has settled with the building’s former insurer and is ready to proceed with the repair, seismic upgrade and roof replacement works. The latter two work items are not covered by insurance but are needed if the building is to not be classed as earthquake prone and is to become a viable leasing option and also made safe for long-term occupation. The replacement of the roof will remove an ongoing impediment to the building’s repair, safe maintenance and its coordinated overall appearance and conservation.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Funding Scheme

5.7       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

6.   Option 1 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $900,000 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund. It is envisaged that this grant funding would not cover all of the required seismic upgrade and roof replacement works but it is not yet clear what percentage of the total spend required for the project that this grant would represent. However, the scale of the building and hence the amount of repair is such that the grant would be well below the normal maximum limit for a landmark grant of fifty percent of the total cost of the works.

6.2       The proposed use of the building is proposed to be the same as before the earthquakes with a mixture of retail and commercial space. However, the scope of work is likely to include required upgrades to structure to achieve somewhere in the region of sixty-seven per cent New Build Standard (NBS); installation of new complying fire egress and fire protection systems, as well as enhanced disabled access; and replacement of the asbestos roof system.  Along with a building consent process these works will require a resource consent as they will alter the external appearance of the building through a new emergency escape being created at the west end and the replacement of the roof cladding with a different material (colour coated corrugated roofing iron).

6.3       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects to date is summarised in the table below. The level of grant support proposed for the Former Chief Post Office Building is similar in scale to a number of other grants for similar scaled buildings. A number of these projects have now been completed and illustrate the positive outcomes achieved with Central City Landmark Heritage Grant funding acting as an incentive to the owners to invest substantial amounts of their own funds into a heritage building requiring repairs.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant for the Former Post Office Building

2018/2019

$900,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$600,000

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The central city has a distinctive character and identity’. Central City Landmark Heritage Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund of $1,500,000 for the financial year 2018/2019.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy is as follows:

‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of Central City heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

The schemes ‘Operational Guidelines’ are used in the interpretation and application of this Policy. 

6.12    The Council also requires the owner to enter into conservation covenants.  Covenants also act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.   Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a new full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant. There is already a covenant on this building but it is suggested a new covenant with updated clauses should be created to cover these specific works and the eventual modified building.

 

Risks and Mitigations

6.22    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.23    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is normally expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. 

6.24    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.25    The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

7.   Option 2 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund. This lower amount of grant funding would possibly be insufficient to give the building owner the confidence and willingness to embark on the initial steps to undertake and complete the works to the building. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed lower grant level to the Former Chief Post Office

2018/2019

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$900,000

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of the Central City - including the views to the clock tower from the surrounding streets and the ornate facades to Cathedral Square which form an important part of the enclosure of the City’s prime civic space;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building and maintains its relationship to the associated heritage space of Cathedral Square;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The lower level of grant funding may be insufficient to encourage the owner of the building to embark on the process of securing, repairing and upgrading the building;

·    Lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the owner to raise funds from other sources of finance.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Former Chief Post Office, Statement of Heritage Significance

39

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

9.        Approval for a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the Sargood Son and Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/922491

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

941 8934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant for the heritage building at 92 Lichfield Street, Christchurch, more commonly known as the Sargood Son & Ewen Building.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to dialogue with the owner of the building who wishes to see the building repaired, seismically upgraded and renovated internally and externally.

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.

2.2       The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve a Central City Landmark Heritage Grant of $900,000 for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building, 92 Lichfield Street. The grant would come from two financial years, $600,000 from this year and $300,000 from 2019/2020.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       T:

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage Protection

·     Level of Service: 1.4.10 All Central City Landmark Heritage Fund grants meet the policy and guidelines Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the City’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·  Option 1 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $900,000 (preferred option);

·  Option 2 - A Central City Landmark Heritage grant of up to $600,000.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

1.1.3              The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building for an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building will be likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage grant fund and some of the following years. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that this fund was created for.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

      

Photographs of the North Façade pre-earthquakes, left, and the West Façade in 2012, right.

Brief History

5.1       The commercial building is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan, as 'Highly Significant'. The building is not currently registered by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). See the attached ‘Statement of Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was designed by the Melbourne based architects, Tayler and Fitts and completed in 1893. The building was designed for the firm of Sargood, Son and Ewen, the Melbourne based company of warehousemen and importers. Frederick Sargood and J A Ewen were the partners of the firm with Frederick Sargood’s son Percy overseeing the New Zealand operations, and hence the unusual name for the building.

5.3       The building was designed to be a warehouse for the wide range of goods imported by the company and served this purpose until 1973. At the time of its construction, the building fronted onto one of the prime commercial streets in Christchurch, Lichfield Street, and the main façade was designed in a grand late Victorian classical style. Unusually the building had a front façade with ornate brick and stone detailing wrapping around the west corner and part way down the lane. This gives the mid-block building a rare three dimensional depth in a street that was, other than at the road junctions, composed of single face facades. The principal entrance to the building on the symmetrical North Facade was originally in the centre of the projecting bay on Lichfield Street but was later moved to the eastern side of the facade. This adversely impacted on the original ornate window formerly located here. The original finished building included ornate parapets and decorated gables but these elements were removed in the aftermath of the Napier earthquake in the 1930’s.

5.4       Along with the modifications outlined above, the building had a series of extensions added to the southern side throughout the early 20th Century which were designed by local architects and which were much simpler than the original front part in their façade treatment. These extensions were not envisaged to be viewed from a distance as they were by the time of their construction surrounded by other large scale commercial buildings. Other alterations were carried out to the interior spaces and crucially these included substantial seismic upgrade works completed in 2004-2005 including a concrete sheer wall installed behind the main Lichfield Street façade.

5.5       The building was damaged in the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes but the seismic upgrade work done in the early 2000’s performed well and the building only sustained relatively minor damage which can be repaired. The main area of damage was to the upper part of the west façade which had not been fully strengthened. Part of this brickwork façade collapsed in one of the many aftershocks in June 2011. A large wall of shipping containers has been placed along the main Lichfield Street facade but this façade has sustained only minor damage due to the concrete sheer wall. The building has been vacant since the earthquakes but the building has been secured with exterior fencing to the lower floor windows and doors. However, there is still considerable risk to the building from illegal entry and continuing deterioration from lack of occupation and necessary maintenance.

5.6       The applicant for the grant is the current owner, ‘FTG Securities Limited’. The owner has settled with the building’s former insurer and is ready to proceed with the repair and seismic upgrade works. The initial aim is to complete the seismic strengthening of the main façade by connecting the existing sheer wall to new side sheer walls and to new structural diaphragms in the floors and roof space. The latter works are not covered by insurance but are needed if the building is to not be classed as earthquake prone and is to become a viable leasing option and also made safe for long-term occupation. The completion of the sheer walls will also enable the removal of the shipping containers, and reconstruction in matching brickwork and detailing of the upper parts of the West Façade which were lost in June 2011.

The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Funding Scheme

5.7       The series of earthquakes occurring in the Christchurch region since September 2010 has resulted in the most significant loss of Central City heritage and character buildings in the history of Christchurch. This loss of heritage heightens the importance of opportunities to retain, repair and strengthen those remaining buildings having a significant connection to the past. The Council’s “Draft Central City Recovery Plan, December 2011”, provided for increased heritage funding of $27.7 million to be allocated over 10 years via the Annual Plan process.  The plan provided the initiative to take a pro-active approach with owners to achieve the retention of key Central City landmark heritage buildings – including listed buildings and facades. The Tables enclosed in the Options section below summarize the grants programme so far.

6.   Option 1 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $900,000 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $900,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund spread over two financial years. It is envisaged that this grant funding would not cover all of the required repair and seismic upgrade works but would form a valuable contribution to the overall cost of the works which have been priced for the owners at over four million dollars by the contractor, Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd.

6.2       The proposed use of the building is likely to be the same as before the earthquakes with a mixture of retail and commercial space. However, the scope of work will include upgrades to the structure to achieve sixty-seven per cent New Build Standard (NBS); installation of new complying fire egress and fire protection systems, as well as new disabled access is required. 

6.3       Central City Landmark Heritage Grant support to other projects to date is summarised in the table below. The level of grant support proposed for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building is similar in scale to a number of other grants for similar scaled buildings. A number of these projects have now been completed and illustrate the positive outcomes achieved with Landmark Heritage grant funding acting as an incentive to the owners to invest substantial amounts of their own funds into a heritage building requiring repairs and upgrades.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant for the Former Post Office Building

2018/2019

$900,000

Proposed grant for the Sargood Son & Ewen Building

2018/2019

$600,000

Commitment from 2019/2020

2019/2020

$300,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019           

 

$0

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

 

$1,200,000

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report. There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’ and ‘The Central City has a distinctive character and identity’. Central City Landmark Heritage Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies and policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993 for Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value.

Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of Implementation - The cost to the Council of this option would be a total of $900,000; $600,000 taken from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund of $1,500,000 for the financial year 2018/2019 and $300,000 from the following year, 2019/2020.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - There will be no on-going maintenance costs to Council as a result of this grant.

6.10    Funding source - The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the current Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.11    The Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Policy is as follows:

‘That the Council acknowledges the need to retain and recover those Central City heritage buildings which the community recognises as key built landmarks which contribute to the continuing sense of identity for the Central City.

That the Council provides a Central City Heritage Landmarks Fund to assist with the retention, repair, reconstruction and seismic strengthening of Central City heritage landmark buildings which are able to be recovered for continuing use.’

The schemes ‘Operational Guidelines’ are used in the interpretation and application of this Policy. 

6.12    The Council also requires the owner to enter into conservation covenants.  Covenants act as a protective mechanism, ensuring the building and setting is retained once the work is undertaken.   Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Central City Landmark Heritage Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full conservation covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.13    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered on the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the proposed grant will be above $150,000 there is a requirement for a full conservation covenant on this property title in association with this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works, certification by Council heritage staff and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost. 

Implementation

6.22    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is normally expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works. 

6.23    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Council or relevant Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.24    The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This would be a relatively large grant to a single building project and will use up a significant proportion of the years Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund as well as some of the following year’s funds. However, this is exactly the kind of large scale retention, repair and restoration project that the fund was created for.

7.   Option 2 - Central City Landmark Heritage Funding of up to $600,000

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. This option proposes funding of $600,000 from the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant Fund. This lower amount of grant funding would possibly be insufficient to give the building owner the confidence and willingness to embark on the initial steps to undertake and complete the works to the building. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1.

 

Annual Budget 2018/2019 for the Central City Landmark Heritage Grant fund

Funding Year

$1,500,000

The Christchurch Club, Latimer Square

2012/2013

$1,700,000

Former Trinity Congregational Church, 124 Worcester Street

2012/2013

$1,000,000

West Avon Apartments, 279 Montreal Street

2013/2014

$800,000

Former CBS Building, 159 Manchester Street

2014/2015

$900,000

Old Stone Class Room Building, St Michaels & All Angels

2014/2015

$855,000

Former Community of the Sacred Name, 181 Barbadoes Street

2013/2014

$950,000

Midland Club, Oxford Terrace

2015/2016

$869,500

33 New Regent Street Shops

2015/2016

$900,000

McLean’s Mansion, 387 Manchester Street

2016/2017

$1,934,000

Former Public Trust Building, 152 Oxford Terrace

2017/2018

$1,934,000

Proposed grant level to the Former Chief Post Office

2018/2019

$900,000

Proposed lower grant to the Sargood Son & Ewen Building

2018/2019

$600,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

 

$0

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·    It supports the retention of a 'Highly Significant' heritage building in a very prominent location;

·    Through repair and occupation this grant assisted repair will help to reinforce the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

·    It promotes the retention of a heritage building to an appropriate use with minimal change to the exterior and minimal loss of remaining heritage fabric;

·    It will help to preserve the existing characteristics and qualities of this part of a key street within the Central City - including views from the recently completed Christchurch Bus Exchange;

·    The grant will support work to repair this building and accelerate the removal of the current temporary wall of shipping containers which restrict the full and safe use of Lichfield Street;

·    Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building;

·    With the grant acting as an incentive the project to restore the building is likely to generate significant private investment into the Christchurch local economy;

·    The lower amount of the grant will avoid any need to allocate from the following year’s funding.

The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The lower level of grant funding may be insufficient to encourage the owner of the building to embark on the process of securing, repairing and upgrading the building;

·    Lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the owner to raise funds from other sources of finance.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance, 92 Lichfield Street

53

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

10.    Property Transfer - 20 Templar St (Bill Sutton House)

Reference:

18/935606

Presenter(s):

Luke Rees-Thomas, Property Consultant

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that Council accept the transfer of the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond from the Crown.

1.2       20 Templar St is the former home of acclaimed New Zealand artist Bill Sutton, who died in 2000. The property was acquired by the Crown within the wider Residential Red Zone programme. LINZ currently holds the property as agent for the Crown. A conservation covenant protects the property which saved the residence from demolition.

1.3       A proposal has now been presented that includes Council receiving transfer of the property. LINZ have committed a substantial sum to refurbish and strengthening the premises. LINZ will also enter a lease with ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’, who will occupy and manage the property in memory of Bill Sutton’s accomplishments. Once these processes are complete, the property will be transferred to Council and added to the existing Parks Heritage portfolio.

1.4       It is proposed the Trust will be responsible for all operational and maintenance costs throughout the lease term. The Council’s financial exposure would be limited to standard property renewals as expected under comparable community use agreements. It is expected the Lessor would subsidise the rental to a nominal rate.

1.5       LINZ now awaits the decision of Council to accept the asset before any further actions can be authorised.

Origin of Report

1.6       This report is staff generated.

1.7       The proposal for Council to receive the property originates back to a letter sent by LINZ to the Council’s CEO in July 2017.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents (primarily the arts community). While the decision is not easily reversible, this is not significant enough to change the overall significance value.

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

2.1.3   Any effect on the general public is likely to be minimal. The property has historically been a private residence and access to the site would be improved.

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Resolve to receive the property located at 20 Templar St, Richmond – being CFR CB159/132, as a gift on the following conditions;

a.    LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

b.    The property will transfer following completion of the works.

c.     Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

d.    The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

e.    The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

2.         Note the presence of a lease over 20 Templar St to ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ for a minimum term of 5 years.

3.         Resolve, that in the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred back to Council, under the Otakaro Avon River Corridor development plan. That these properties will be allocated by Council, to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust, which include car parking and an ‘artist in residence’ dwelling.

4.         Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to negotiate and enter into a transfer agreement for the property and related documentation, in keeping with Items 1, 2 & 3.

 

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: 6.9.1.1 To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance - Percentage of public monuments, sculptures, artworks with Conservation Plans in place:20 %

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Accept the proposed property transfer (Preferred Option)

·     Option 2 – Decline the proposed property transfer

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The arts community will receive support in the form of a new facility that showcases a popular icon’s work.

·     The Council will receive a refurbished and strengthened property with a clear operational purpose in place.

·     The Council will receive a secure tenant in place for a fixed term.

·     The Council will not be locked into a long term lease, the initial term of 5 years will allow both parties to gauge progress.

·     The Lessee will manage the premises and be liable for operational costs, building maintenance and general outgoings.

·     The Council will continue to support redevelopment of the Avon River Corridor.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Council is unlikely to receive a rental return under the proposed lease.

·     The lease is only guaranteed for an initial term of 5 years. However renewal options may be included.

·     Costs to maintain the building will incrementally increase over the lifetime of the asset, which is typical.

4.4       Should the Council elect not to proceed with the transfer of 20 Templar St, the property refurbishment and lease to the Trust is unlikely to proceed.

 

5.   Context/Background

20 Templar St / Bill Sutton Home

5.1       The Sutton House at 20 Templar St, Richmond, was the former residence of acclaimed New Zealand artist, Bill (W.A.) Sutton who died in 2000. The house was designed by Tom Taylor and constructed in 1963.

5.2       A conservation covenant protecting the house and its setting was entered into between the subsequent owner, Neil Roberts and Christchurch City Council in 2002. Following the 2010/11 Canterbury Earthquakes the property was included in the TC3 red zone, although the house was not significantly damaged.

5.3       The property is unique in that it is one of the few survivors from the Red Zone residential demolition programme. This is primarily due to the land covenant, which required the Council’s territorial consent on any works. The Council was consulted and these discussions progressed through to the Minister’s request which sought a more positive outcome. Whilst the property is now located in park like surroundings, this also provides certain challenges, such as potential security risks.

5.4       Property Review:

·    The property listed as 20 Templar St is contained within Computer Freehold Register CB159/132, Legal Description ‘Part Rural Section 33’, being 703m2 in area. The land is Fee Simple and not classified as Reserve.

·    The land is currently zoned ‘Specific Purpose (Flat Land Recovery) Zone’ within the operative District Plan.

·    The sole instrument on the title is a Land Covenant, registered 2002, which relates to the heritage nature of the property and strictly limits certain works or improvements without first receiving the Council’s formal consent as territorial authority. Beyond the covenant, there are no aspects of the property’s title which hinder the Council’s ownership in the future.

·    The current rateable value of 20 Templar St is $14,000, primarily due the land zoning. However this is somewhat misleading, no improvements value is included, whereas the house is still present. Staff have not sought a market rental valuation as the property is unique with few comparable sites.

·    Storm and waste water drainage from the property remains in service. The sewer connection is currently pumped via a kiosk on the adjacent land, through to Harvey St.

·    Regenerate Christchurch are the entity leading the redevelopment of land acquired under the Residential Red Zone programme. Plans for the area surrounding 20 Templar St show green public spaces running from Harvey Tce down to the Avon River. Public consultation on development options for the Avon River Corridor has recently closed. A copy of the subsequent report can be viewed at - https://engage.regeneratechristchurch.nz

LINZ Proposal

5.5       On 31 July 2017, Land Information New Zealand (as agent for the Crown) wrote to the Council’s Chief Executive and relayed a request from the Minster of Land Information. The letter raised a positive opportunity and suggested the Council consider inheriting 20 Templar St as a natural extension of its statutory responsibility under the land covenant.

5.6       In summary, the offering from LINZ includes; a refurbishment of the property (funded solely by LINZ), a building change of use to accommodate community applications, a new lease to an incorporated Trust and the gifting of the property to Council for $1.

5.7       LINZ hold Crown property on a transitional basis until a future use is determined, assets are then allocated to a more permanent ministerial department. In this instance, it appears fitting for Council to receive 20 Templar St as the proposed use honours the heritage of the building. It is also probable that the surrounding land will vest to Council as park/reserve in the future under the Regenerate Christchurch plan.

5.8       Council staff met with the key stakeholders in late 2017, discussions were positive and a general consensus to progress plans was agreed. The project has now progressed, with LINZ coordinating refurbishment plans and consent applications.

5.9       LINZ have communicated the proposal to Regenerate Christchurch, who have confirmed no objection to the granting of short term leases in support of the desired outcomes. The retention of the Bill Sutton home as a community museum appears to fit within the wider area planning.

5.10    The refurbishment works are now on hold pending the decision of Council to accept the asset upon completion.

The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust / Lease

5.11    ‘The Sutton Heritage House and Garden Trust’ is a newly incorporated entity formed by a group of individuals who are passionate about the works of Bill Sutton. The Council has received a written proposal from the Trust – refer Attachments A and B.

5.12    The purpose of the Trust is to save the house and property as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating Bill Sutton. This entity is to be co-chaired by Dame Anne Hercus and Neil Roberts (prior owner of 20 Templar St and curator of the Robert McDougal Art Gallery). Trustees also include individuals on behalf of the University of Canterbury and the Christchurch Art Gallery.

5.13    The Trust will manage the dwelling and property as a house museum and cultural destination providing display/exhibition space, a venue for community art education programmes and be available for public meetings. The house museum will provide interpretation of Bill Sutton’s life and work. One bedroom will be used as an administration office supporting the activities in the house and the Trust. The space may also provide coordinated support for other similar venues in the city such as the Ngaio Marsh House.

5.14    LINZ intends to grant a lease to the Trust prior to the Council receiving Transfer. The lease will hold an initial fixed term of 5 years. Due to process limitations, LINZ are only able to lease this land for a maximum of 5 years. In order to ensure Council staff are able to effectively manage the contract, feedback has been provided to LINZ along with the Council’s standard lease template. At the time of writing, the lease agreement remains under negotiation between LINZ and the Trust.

5.15    The Trust have requested lease rental be a nominal rate e.g. $1 per annum. This appeal is rationalised on the basis of all income being required to satisfy operational expenses and promotion of the house and garden.

5.16    In order for 20 Templar St to be utilised as a public access venue, planning regulations require the Trust to supply additional car parking to support the proposed use. To satisfy this requirement, the Trust will lease land at 22 & 26 Harvey Tce from the Crown (next door to 20 Templar St). As mentioned in 5.7 there is potential for the Crown to transfer this adjacent land to Council in the future. Therefore it is recommended, in event these land titles do transfer to Council they are allocated to allow the continuation of the Trust’s occupation within 20 Templar St.

5.17    In the event the Trust elect not to renew their lease of 20 Templar St beyond the initial 5 year term, the Council would be required to run an open tenant sourcing process. The building will be in a format suitable for multiple applications and the surrounding area should be developed by this time. There does not appear to be great risk to Council should this eventuality occur.

5.18    Staff have reviewed the Trust’s proposal and are satisfied the venture contains relatively low risk exposure for Council. In the event the Trust were unable to meet financial lease obligations, the Council would review formal accounts and consider whether any further considerations are warranted.

Property Works

5.19    LINZ are leading the building refurbishment project and will meet all related costs. The works have been scoped based the operational use desired by the Trust, including public access. LINZ have lodged a land use resource consent to develop the house as a community facility.

5.20    LINZ have outsourced the services of a professional Architect and Conservation Consultant to assess the proposed alterations and effect in relation to the land covenant. A report has been completed on the property – refer Attachment C.

5.21    The proposed work to the house includes both deteriorated fabric repairs and change of use alterations. The repairs are the replacement of deteriorated and rotted fabric and will be done on a like-for-like basis with no resultant changes to the architectural form or aesthetic appearance of the house. The work is repair and restoration. Improvements are required to ensure compliance with disabled access and fire egress routes. Further details are included within the Consultant’s report.

5.22    The change of use requires that the strength of the building be upgraded to as near as reasonably practicable to that of a new building, the engineers propose upgrading the house to achieve a minimum of 67% NBS. This requires replacement of some wall claddings and linings to enable installation of additional bracing and to improve structural connections of the framing and framing to the foundations. 67% NBS is sufficient to meets the Council’s own property occupancy policy.

5.23    As territorial authority, the Council is involved at several levels to assess and approve the requested changes; building consent, resource consent and land covenant approval. The latter is the subject of a separate Council report, which should be read in conjunction with this item.

5.24    The current expectation of works completion is March 2019, subject to Council approval to receive the property.

Property Transfer

5.25    The Crown will gift 20 Templar St to the Council on the following terms:

·   LINZ will facilitate and fund the property refurbishment as detailed within Item 10 of Attachment C. The works will include a change of use to provide a publically accessible community facility and be in accordance with consented resource and building applications.

·   The property will transfer following completion of the works.

·   Council staff will confirm acceptance of the Trust’s lease terms.

·   The property will transfer following commencement of the Trust’s lease.

·   The property will be gifted to Council for a nominal consideration of $1.

5.26    The Council’s Parks unit support the receipt of 20 Templar St and will budget for future property ownership costs as follows:

·   The building would be managed in perpetuity. A maintenance plan would be required at the completion of the refurbishment works.

·   The Opex budget for building and grounds maintenance cost are unbudgeted and cannot be quantified until the terms of the agreement with the Trust is finalised and Council becomes the owner of the property.

·   Additional Opex renewal funding will be requested in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

5.27    Section 107 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 authorises the Crown to dispose of land held under the said Act. It is the Crowns responsibility to meet its statutory obligations under the aforesaid acts before the land can be disposed of by the Crown direct to Council.

5.28    It is usual practise to obtain written agreements for sale and purchase, these agreements give certainty by placing terms and conditions on the vendor and purchaser and obligate them to complete the transaction as per the agreement. A Sale and Purchase contract will be negotiated with the Crown. Council staff will review the finalised lease agreement prior to processing the property transfer.

5.29    Should the Council receive transfer, a valuation will be required in order to set an approximate accounting book value for the assets.

6.   Option 1 - Accept the proposed property transfer (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The Council elects to accept the Crown’s proposal and will receive 20 Templar St, on terms as stipulated within this report.

6.2       In the event 22 & 26 Harvey Tce are transferred to Council under the Otakaro Avon River Corridor development plan, those properties are allocated to support the functions of 20 Templar St and the Trust.

Significance

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

6.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not required.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The local community are likely to be supportive of this acquisition as it provides support for an appreciated local artist and the arts community in general.

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 – Minor staff costs to process property transaction and establish lease management.

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Lease management, property renewal costs over time.

6.10    Funding source – Current budgets and new allocation for building lifetime renewals.

Legal Implications

6.11    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision.

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

6.13    The legal consideration is a review of the lease and transfer agreement.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.14    There is a risk that the Trust may be unable to meet their projected income levels and as a result be unable to independently meet financial lease obligations. Should this occur, the Council would need to review the situation, including the Trust’s account and make further contribution decisions.

Implementation

6.15    Implementation dependencies - The agreement is dependent on the property works (LINZ) and successful negotiation of the Lease agreement with the Trust.

6.16    Implementation timeframe – 6 months (approx.)

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   The arts community will receive support in the form of a new facility that showcases a popular icon’s work.

·   The Council will receive a refurbished and strengthened property with a clear operational purpose in place.

·   The Council will receive a secure tenant in place for a fixed term.

·   The Council will not be locked into a long term lease, the initial term of 5 years will allow both parties to gauge progress.

·   The Lessee will manage the premises and be liable for operational costs, building maintenance and general outgoings.

·   The Council will continue to support redevelopment of the Avon River Corridor.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council is unlikely to receive a rental return under the proposed lease.

·   The lease is only guaranteed for an initial term of 5 years. However renewal options may be exercised.

·   Cost to maintain the building will incrementally increase over the lifetime of the asset, which is typical.

7.   Option 2 - Decline the proposed property transfer

Option Description

7.1       The Council elects to decline the Crown’s proposal and will not receive 20 Templar St.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are not necessary as no action is being taken.

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       The community are not specifically affected by this option due to there being no change in ownership.

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 – Nil

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

Legal Implications

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.10    There is a risk of negative public feedback from a small portion of the community, should the Council elect not to proceed with the acquisition.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - None, no action being taken.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.12    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will not incur any costs in relation to this property.

·   The Council will not be bound to a lease.

7.13    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   If the Council does not agree to receive the property transfer, the project is unlikely to proceed.

·   The arts community will not benefit from a new facility which honours a celebrated artist.

·   Future long term ownership would be uncertain.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Trust Proposal

68

b

Location and Layout Plan

79

c

Covenant Proposal

81

 

 

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

Luke Rees-Thomas - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

11.    Covenant Consent Approval for 20 Templar Street, Sutton House

Reference:

18/930214

Presenter(s):

Amanda Ohs
Fiona Wykes

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that Council approve repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the former residence of artist William (Bill) Sutton, known as the Sutton House.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to the application for covenant consent approval received on 4 September 2018. 

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project having little or no impact on Council’s ability to carry out its role, and the low level of impact on ratepayers. While the decision is not easily reversible, as the result of the decision involves physical work to a building, these works are not detrimental to this building. The overall social, economic and cultural impacts that could arise from the project are positive. Overall this decision is not significant enough to change the overall significance value.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.      Approve a covenant consent to undertake maintenance, earthquake repair and upgrade works to 20 Templar Street, the Sutton House.  

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       T:

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 1.4.3.1 Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places - Provide advice as required in a timely manner, within 10 working days for consents Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the City’s heritage places.

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the City’s heritage places.

4.1.2   A full conservation covenant is registered on the title of the property at 20 Templar Street. The current owner is seeking a covenant consent for essential maintenance, earthquake repairs and upgrade works to enable the building to be used as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating the life and work of the renowned Canterbury artist William Sutton.

 

5.   Context/Background

Heritage Significance

5.1       William Sutton’s dwelling, integral studio and setting are of high significance to the Christchurch District, and have heritage significance nationally, considering Sutton’s standing as a well renowned New Zealand artist.  The building is notable for its mid-century architectural design by Tom Taylor, and the integration of the house with its garden. The dwelling, studio and garden setting have very high integrity and authenticity and can convey with immediacy the way of life of one of New Zealand’s most important artists, and provide valuable context and insight into his work.  A preliminary ‘Statement of Significance’ has been prepared for this building and is attached (Attachment A).  

5.2       The house was designed by Tom Taylor and its construction was completed in 1963.  Tom Taylor studied architecture for two years but did not finish the course. However, he still undertook architectural commissions as well as being an accomplished artist and sculptor. He designed the house for Bill Sutton in the International Modernist style of architecture influenced by the ‘de Stijl’ movement. The house is an accomplished example of this interpretation of the modernist style of architecture using vernacular New Zealand materials and construction techniques that gained popularity in New Zealand after World War 2, especially throughout the 1950s and 60s.  Taylor designed the house to suit Bill Sutton’s specific needs providing both a house and studio. The building is culturally and architecturally a very special building and is a rare example of a building that was designed for a well-known artist and that has remained in its original condition for approximately 50 years. 

Heritage Status

5.3       The house is not currently listed as a heritage place by Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga nor is it in Appendix 9.3.7.2 Schedule of Significant Historic Heritage of the Christchurch District Plan. However, based on a preliminary assessment by Council’s Heritage Team, the house and property are very likely to meet the Resource Management Act threshold for inclusion on the Schedule.  Including the house on schedule of significant historic heritage could be considered when the next District Plan review occurs.

Conservation Covenant

5.4       A conservation covenant protecting the house and its setting was entered into between the owner at the time, Neil Roberts and Christchurch City Council (CCC) in 2002.

Ownership and use

5.5       Following the 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes the property was included in the Residential Red Zone although the house was not significantly damaged. The Red Zone properties including the Sutton house were acquired by the Crown with the land being considered unsuitable for residential use. A Trust, ‘The Sutton Heritage and Garden Trust’ was formed to save the house and property as an interpretive gallery and museum commemorating Bill Sutton. Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) who administer the property on behalf of the Crown have reached agreement with the Trust and CCC to retain the house and landscaped property for this purpose as part of the ‘Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Area’. LINZ will repair the house and undertake statutory upgrading work required by the Building Act for the change of use of the house from a residence to a community facility for a public place of assembly. The accumulated deferred maintenance, earthquake repairs and the minor alterations to the house and setting arising from the statutory upgrading and new use need approval from the Council under the conservation covenant.

 

 

Description of proposed works

5.6       The proposed works that require covenant consent include the works to the exterior of the house including the installation of wheelchair accessible ramps and repairs to the conservatory, which would include alterations to the steel joinery and the glazing. The ramp proposals are reversible, and the overall form of the conservatory from the street will remain unchanged.

5.7       Works to the interior of the house that are relevant to the covenant consent include structural and services upgrades (primarily electrical rewiring). The structural upgrades are required as part of the repair, and the services upgrading can be reversed if necessary with no adverse effects on the original fabric or form of the house. The house’s architectural values, and interpretation, are not affected by the proposed interventions.

5.8       Works to the concrete block garden wall also require covenant consent as will the removal and replacement of one of the garden trees. The wall is protected under the covenant, but it is damaged and on a dangerous lean, out over the footpath as a result of the large Paulownia tree next to the wall. This tree has displaced the wall and its foundations as it has grown. The wall has to be partially deconstructed, the tree removed, then further deconstruction of the wall undertaken. The section of wall is to be reconstructed in new concrete block masonry to match as closely as possible the previous wall but with new foundations. The location and overall dimensions of the new wall will thus be the same as the previous wall. A new Paulownia sapling will be planted to replace the tree which will be removed.

5.9       A minor difference will be that the section of wall requires reconstruction using new metric sized blocks as the hard cement mortar on the existing wall has made it impractical to re-use the existing imperial blocks. It has not been possible to locate a supply of the original, imperial sized blocks.

5.10    The garden layout is being partially amended for the construction of the accessible ramp which will enable the site to comply with the accessibility requirements of the New Zealand Building Code. The amendment of the layout is limited to the minimum required to enable the construction of the ramp and does not affect anything beyond this relatively small area.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Preliminary Statement of Significance, 20 Templar Street, William Sutton House

105

 

 

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

Amanda Ohs - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

12.    Spire Sculpture - Licence to Occupy Latimer Square

Reference:

18/816777

Presenter(s):

Kathy Jarden, Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend that the Council approve a further temporary licence to Neil Dawson for the “Spire” sculpture to continue occupation at Latimer Square.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the earlier consultation with the Central City Recovery Plan and Share an Idea.  The Community sought a number of initiatives to make the city a more exciting, green and safe environment.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend that the Council:

1.         Approve the granting of a Temporary Licence to Occupy part of Latimer Square, approximately 144 square metres as shown in the attached plan for the continued occupation of the sculpture the “Spire” created by artist Neil Dawson with an expiry date of 31 December 2019.

 

 

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: 6.9.1.5 To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance - Resident  satisfaction with presentation of Public Monuments, Sculptures & Artworks: = 90%

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Grant Licence (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Decline Licence

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Council’s continued support of the art installation.

·     Provides a point of attraction to citizens and visitors.

·     Formalises the occupation arrangement that has lapsed.

4.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Continued occupation of Latimer Square until such time as Neil Dawson finds a new home for the sculpture.

4.5       The granting of a new licence continues to support the recovery of the Central City in a creative manner.  The artwork installation aligns with the Transitional Programme implemented in 2012/2013 linking the area of activity, improving the experience, amenity and urban environment of the city and attracting residents and visitors to the Central City.

 

5.   Context/Background

The Sculpture

5.1       Neil Dawson designed a sculpture, the “Spire”, which is suspended in the air across Latimer Square as shown in Attachment A.  The work was part of the Central City Transitional Programme.  The purpose of the sculpture was to improve the experience, amenity and urban environment of the Central City.

5.2       The Spire was installed in 2013 and a temporary Licence to Occupy agreement was issued to Mr Dawson to cover the footprint of the sculpture while allowing the public access under and around the sculpture.

5.3       The Licence agreement expired in 2016.

5.4       Mr Dawson is looking to relocate the Spire to a permanent location and would appreciate if the Council would permit him to retain the sculpture at this location until the end of 2019.  He has indicated that if a permanent location is found earlier he would remove it.

Land Occupation

5.5       Latimer Square is vested in the Council pursuant to the Christchurch City (Reserves) Empowering Act 1972, for the purposes of lawns, ornamental gardens and ornamental buildings.  Section 12 provides that all reserves subject to the Act area to be held and administered subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.6       As a reserve held for “lawns, ornamental gardens, and ornamental buildings” it is considered for Reserve Act 1977 purposes, to be held by the Council as local purpose reserve.

5.7       The Reserves Act, Section 61 empowers the Council to lease or licence local purposes reserves for activities consistent with its classification.  Section 61(2) leases or licences of local purpose reserves may be granted for terms of less than five years without there being a requirement to publicly notify such arrangements.

5.8       When the original licence was entered into, it was the view of Legal Services that an artwork or sculpture on Latimer Square will comply with the Empowering Act provisions.  Artwork and sculptures form an integral part of ornamental gardens and such an object may also be considered to be an ornamental building.

5.9       Community Boards have the delegated authority to grant licences of reserves under the Reserves Act 1977 Section 61, however the power to grant licences within the central city area has been reserved to the Council.  Council staff have no delegated authority to grant leases or licences on land held as local park or reserves.


 

6.   Option 1 – Grant a New Licence  (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Grant a new licence to Neil Dawson to permit the Spire sculpture to remain in Latimer Square until 31 December 2019.

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 not required.

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       The Licensee is specifically affected by this option due to his ownership of the sculpture and desire to find a permanent location for it.  Their views are to seek approval to allow the sculpture to remain until the end of 2019 in order to allow further time to find somewhere to relocate the sculpture to.

6.6       Members of the community and visitors to Christchurch would continue to appreciate the sculpture until such time as it was relocated.

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 – preparation of Licence Agreement

6.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Licensee responsibility

6.10    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.11    There a  legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

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

6.13    The legal consideration is the Reserves Act 1977.  The preparation of the Deed of Licence is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.14    There is a risk that Neil Dawson does not find a suitable location to relocate the Spire sculpture.  This may result in a request to extend the licence agreement.

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

6.14.2 Planned treatment(s) would require resource consent approval under the heritage provisions of the District Plan and a further granting of a new licence.

 

6.15    Implementation dependencies  - Council approval

6.16    Implementation timeframe – 4 weeks

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council’s continued support of the art installation.

·   Provides a point of attraction to citizens and visitors.

·   Formalises the occupation arrangement that has lapsed.

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Continued occupation of Latimer Square until such time as Neil Dawson finds a new home for the sculpture.

7.   Option 2 – Not Grant a New Licence

Option Description

7.1       In not granting a new Licence, Neil Dawson would be required to remove the sculpture from Latimer Square.

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 not required.

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       The Licensee is specifically affected by this option due to the requirement to remove the sculpture.  Members of the community would no longer be able to appreciate the sculpture in Latimer Square.

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 – not applicable

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Licensee responsibilities

7.9       Funding source – Licensee responsibilities

Legal Implications

7.10    There 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

7.12    The legal consideration is serving notice on the Licensee to remove the sculpture and improvements.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.13    There is a risk of some reputational damage or negative impact on the Council’s image in not granting a new Licence to Neil Dawson whose work is well known in the community.  This may result in a minor disengagement with the community.

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

7.13.2 Planned treatments include a positive medial campaign to counter potential negative press.

Implementation

7.14    Implementation dependencies  - Council decision

7.15    Implementation timeframe – 4 weeks

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.16    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Sculpture is removed from Latimer Square immediately.

7.17    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   There are no disadvantages as the intention was always for the sculpture to be removed from Latimer Square.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Spire Sculpture Licence Area Plan

118

 

 

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

Kathy Jarden - Team Leader Leasing Consultancy

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

13.    Art in Public Places : Installation of artwork in Christchurch Botanic Gardens

Reference:

18/911448

Presenter(s):

Brent Smith – Principal Advisor, Citizens and Community

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to seek approval from the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee for the permanent installation and maintenance of a public artwork to be installed on Council land. Diminish and Ascend is a sculpture by David McCracken to be permanently installed in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to seek approval from Council for the installation and maintenance of the artwork.

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 this project being consistent with the Artworks in Public Places Policy and recommendations from the Public Arts Advisory Group, Friends of the Botanic Gardens and the Matapopore Trust. The artwork has been installed on this site as part of the SCAPE Public Art Season in 2016.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee recommend the Council:

1.         Agree to the permanent installation of Diminish and Ascend subject to the following:

a.         All necessary consents and approvals are obtained and provided by SCAPE.

b.         SCAPE confirms that all funding is in place.

c.         Additional maintenance costs for Diminish and Ascend will be included for consideration in the draft 2019/20 Annual Plan

d.         A condition report and long term maintenance and engineering plans are provided

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       Council is being requested to approve the permanent installation and maintenance of Diminish and Ascend in the Information Centre Lake, within the Botanic Gardens.

4.2       The permanent installation of the artwork is supported by the Public Arts Advisory Group, Matapopore Trust and the Friends of the Botanic Gardens.

4.3       The artwork is consistent with the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy.

4.4       The artwork is consistent and compatible with the Council’s Botanic Gardens Management Plan and Master Plan. Further information is provided within Attachment A.

4.5       Community Outcomes: Supports Strong Communities: Celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport.

4.6       This report supports the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 – 2028)

4.7       Activity: Recreation, Sports, Community Arts & Events.

4.8       Level of Service: Support community based organisations to develop, promote and deliver community events and arts in Christchurch.

4.9       Activity: Heritage

Level of Service: To manage and maintain Public Monuments, Sculptures, Artworks and Parks Heritage Buildings of significance.

 

5.   Diminish and Ascend

5.1       The Artist

5.1.1   The artist is David McCracken, an Auckland based artist. He has broad experience in fabrication using steel, fibreglass, glass and wood, and set design for theatre. Has exhibited at various galleries across Auckland and has been shortlisted for the Wallace Art Awards.

5.2       The Artwork

5.2.1   The idea for Diminish and Ascend began many years ago as a conversation about a performance piece depicting a ladder, or similar, that required the protagonist to grow smaller in order to ascend … a kind of Lewis Carroll device that we talked about achieving with shadow puppetry or projection. It was only after outlining a rudimentary sketch that I saw the potential as a perspective illusion …

5.2.2   The Sculpture was originally installed for SCAPE Public Art Season 2016 Presence, at the Information Centre Lake in the Botanic Gardens. The artwork remains in place under a Temporary Access Permit.

5.3       Assessments

5.3.1   An assessment has been carried out by the Council’s Public Arts Advisory Group (PAAG) who have supported the artwork with a grant from the CCC Art in Public Places Fund.

5.3.2   A staff assessment has been carried out by a Project Working Party as per the Artworks in Public Places – Operational Procedures (ATTACHMENT A)

5.3.3   This assessment outlines the criteria for assessment, issues, maintenance requirements and finance implications.

5.3.4   This is consistent with the Artworks in Public Places Policy (Five Year Plan) in regard to the site (Botanic Gardens) which has been identified as a priority 7 site, but is inconsistent in that the art trail has not been developed so it cannot be evaluated against it.

5.4       Issues

5.4.1   The artwork appears robust and the proposed location in the Information Centre Lake, while making it difficult to access for maintenance, protects the work from vandalism and eliminates health and safety concerns from people climbing it.

5.4.2   It is unknown how the internal framework has performed in this environment. Full engineering detail and condition assessment will be required. The full engineering detail will be needed for the permanent installation.

5.4.3   There are some items such as suitable permanent foundation, bird strike, consents and condition to be resolved.

5.4.4   Artwork foundation will need to be replaced for the artwork to become permanent. Silt will need to be removed through to a firm base and foundation re-established.  This has been included in the art work budget.

5.4.5   Access and the need to wash down the artwork several times a week means maintenance costs are high.

5.5       Finance

5.5.1   The sculpture has a value of $192,000 including installation costs.

5.5.2   The artwork is funded through sponsorship, a CCC Art in Public Places Fund grant and a Friends of the Botanic Gardens grant.

5.5.3   Maintenance is currently being undertaken and paid for out of the Council artworks budget at the expense of maintenance of other art works.  It is currently costing $700 to $760 per month to maintain. 

5.5.4   Any further additional maintenance costs are unbudgeted.

5.6       Recommendations

5.6.1   A condition report and long term maintenance and engineering plans are provided

5.6.2   All necessary consents and approvals are obtained and provided by SCAPE.

5.6.3   SCAPE confirms that all funding is in place.

5.6.4   Additional maintenance funding is requested in the 2019/20 Annual Plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Project Working Party Diminish Ascend Final

123

 

 

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

Brent Smith - Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

14.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/581637

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

2.       That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $76,342 for conservation, maintenance and upgrade work to the building located at 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Twenty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the structural upgrade, repair and reconstruction of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The building will continue to be a key part of Christchurch’s heritage as a rare surviving example of a quality brick dwelling from the turn of the 20th Century;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The grant may seem large for a single dwelling, but it is lower than previous grants awarded to other buildings of equal heritage value and it is considered that it is warranted given the rarity of this type of heritage building in Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes;

·     The relatively high cost of strengthening and repairs to structures with high quality external brickwork as compared to, for example, timber frame and weatherboard.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 41 Ranfurly Street is scheduled as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan and is listed Category 2 by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT). The statement of significance for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       41 Ranfurly Street was built in conjunction with 45 Ranfurly Street next door by the brothers Philip and Henry Soanes in 1899. The brothers were builders and bricklayers and it appears that the brick villas were built to showcase the brothers’ design and construction skills. They are very similar, but not identical. Both buildings were damaged in the Canterbury earthquakes but can be repaired.

5.3       The dwelling at 41 Ranfurly Street is a triple brick, return bay villa with plasterwork detailing and a corrugated metal roof. The ornate bay window has an octagonal turret. It is considered to be a good representation of the planning of bay villas at the turn of the 20th Century, and is distinguished by the special qualities of the craftsmanship applied to the building. These consist of decorative plasterwork and timber detailing, and highly skilled bricklaying. It also still contains original timber sash windows and cast iron wall vents to the exterior, along with a bull-nose verandah with cast iron fretwork and an encaustic tile floor.

5.4       The current owner, Ben Calvin, is the applicant for the grant. Mr Calvin purchased the building in its damaged state in order to save the heritage building and turn it into his family home.  The previous owners had considered that repairing it would be too difficult. The current owner has had ongoing discussions with Heritage staff to ensure the repair proposals are acceptable and employed a conservation architect to undertake the design work when he applied for resource consent. Part of the works involve the reconstruction of the brick chimneys which were lost following the earthquakes.

5.5       Work has commenced on the building in order to prevent further, irreparable deterioration, but only after agreement from Council staff to monitor the works through regular site visits. Part of the application is therefore retrospective and the applicant is fully aware that these parts of the works have been undertaken without the grant application being approved by the Committee.

41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch, February 2018

6.   Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested comprise structural repairs and upgrades to foundations and walls, brick repair, and the reconstruction of the chimneys. These works will enable the building to be occupied again, and for it to continue to serve its original purpose for many years to come.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to repair, reconstruct and retain the heritage form and fabric of the building. With the completion of the works outlined the building will be fully repaired, and the owner is committed to the ongoing use and future maintenance of the dwelling.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Structural repairs, and protection of fabric

$150,457

Scaffolding and set up costs

$6,018

Chimney reconstruction

$44,000

Plasterwork repair

$12,000

Brickwork repairs

$8,000

Provisional sum

$22,047

Engineering fees

$6,951

Architect’s fees

$5,000

Total of structural, repair, and reconstruction work

$254,473

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building is very important as one of the few brick heritage dwellings remaining in Christchurch, and its retention and repair is worthy of support. However, given the limited amount of available funding and the high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of thirty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (thirty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$76,342

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A limited conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the structural upgrade, repair and reconstruction of this significant heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The building will continue to be a key part of Christchurch’s heritage as a rare surviving example of a quality brick dwelling from the turn of the 20th Century;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The grant may seem large for a single dwelling, but it is lower than previous grants awarded to other buildings of equal heritage value and it is considered that it is warranted given the rarity of this type of heritage building in Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of twenty percent ($50,895) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a difficult heritage building repair project; a project which has saved a heritage building from demolition at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the city and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

41 Ranfurly Street - Statement of Significance

140

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

15.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 201 High Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/601608

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 201 High Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $88,650 for conservation, repair and upgrade work to the protected heritage facade located at 201 High Street, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Twenty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option):

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the structural upgrade, repair and retention of this significant heritage façade. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The retained façade will be a key part of a small cluster of remaining heritage structures in this part of the central city;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The grant may seem large to retain a façade.  This is an important, two storey commercial façade in High Street in the central City and it is considered that the grant is warranted given the rarity of this type of heritage building in Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The commercial building faҫade at 201 High Street is scheduled as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The ‘Statement of Significance’ for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       The façade at 201 High Street, was originally part of a modest commercial building from the turn of the 20th Century. The building housed a series of small businesses for more than a century, often fashion/clothing related businesses, such as drapers, tailors, milliners, and dress makers to name a few. While the area declined slightly in the late 20th Century, High Street underwent a revival in the late 1990s and the façade at 201 High Street is one of the few remnants of what had once again become a thriving area of the Central City. 

5.3       The brick façade is architecturally significant both for its style and for its association with the Christchurch architectural practice of Clarkson and Ballantyne. The remaining façade is highly decorative with large, leaded light windows, decorative arches and pilasters, and polychromatic brickwork. The building sustained severe damage in the Canterbury earthquakes with the façade separating from the rest of the building. The main part of the building was demolished, but the façade was propped and retained, and is currently protected by shipping containers and timber bracing.

   

201 High Street, Christchurch, December 2014, left, and pre-earthquakes on the right

5.4       The current owner of the facade and applicant for the grant is Shaun Stockman. Mr Stockman purchased the façade and the site in order to save the heritage structure by constructing a new building behind it and attaching the façade to the new building. He has had ongoing discussions with Heritage and other Council staff to ensure that his proposals are acceptable and has obtained a resource consent for the works. Mr Stockman is well known for his work with heritage buildings in the Central City, and is aware of the challenges of trying to save these important prominent structures.

6.   Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested comprise of structural repairs and upgrades, along with repairs to brickwork, stonework, and lead light windows and the reconstruction of the cantilevered verandah. These works will enable the façade to be saved, and for it to continue in use for many years to come.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to repair, reconstruct and retain the heritage form and fabric of the structure. With the completion of the works outlined the façade will be fully repaired, and able to be attached to the proposed new building behind.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Propping and protection of original fabric

$30,500

Structural work

$122,000

Fabric repairs

$104,500

Reconstruction

$38,500

Total of structural, repair, and reconstruction work

$295,500

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The building is very important as a remaining, two storey, commercial, brick façade in the centre of Christchurch, and its retention and repair is worthy of support. However, given the limited amount of available funding and the high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of thirty percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (thirty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$88,650

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan     Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the visitor industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A limited conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the structural upgrade, repair and retention of this significant heritage façade. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The retained façade will be a key part of a small cluster of remaining heritage structures in this part of the Central City;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The grant may seem large to retain a façade.  This is an important, two storey commercial façade in High Street in the central City and it is considered that the grant is warranted given the rarity of this type of heritage building in Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of twenty percent ($59,100) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be fund in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for a difficult heritage building repair project, which will save a heritage facade from demolition at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

201 High Street - Statement of Significance

151

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

16.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/630258

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $5,136 for conservation, repair and upgrade work to the heritage building located at 23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the ongoing maintenance of this heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     A well maintained roof is part of ensuring the ongoing retention and protection of the heritage building;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Given the small size of the grant, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the reasonable percentage of the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The building at 23 Mandeville Street is scheduled as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan. It is also listed as a Category 2 place with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The statement of significance for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       23 Mandeville Street, was originally one of a set of houses known as the ‘Walker Settlement’ constructed under the “Workers’ Dwelling Act 1905”, a scheme that intended to provide 5000 affordable houses for workers and in actuality resulted in just over 600. The houses were designed by the Government Architect, Woburn Temple and were constructed of ferro-concrete, which was unusual for workers’ dwellings at the time. The ferro-concrete was thought to be a warmer and more weatherproof alternative to the more standard timber construction of the time.

5.3       The building remained in use as a dwelling until the turn of the 21st Century. It has been used for commercial purposes since then and is currently being used as a restaurant. It is one of only two remaining buildings from the Walker Settlement development.

23 Mandeville Street, Christchurch, January 2017

5.4       The current owners of the building and applicants for the grant are Mr and Mrs Ling. The Lings recently altered the use of the building to a restaurant, after it had been vacant for some time. The grant request is for the replacement of the roof in like-for-like materials in order to maintain the building in good condition and ensure its ongoing viable use.

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested comprise of the replacement of the existing corrugated iron roof with a new like for like replacement. The existing roof has reached the end of its life and a new roof is required to maintain weather-tightness.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to replace the roofing iron and complete any minor repairs to the roof structure. With the completion of the works outlined the roof will serve to protect the remaining structure below.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Replacement of  roof

$10,272

Total of structural, repair, and reconstruction work

$10,272

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The proposed work on this now commercial building is consistent with the intent of the Heritage Incentive Grant programme. Although there is only a limited amount of available funding and a high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project as the overall amount is relatively small.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$5,136

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As it will be below the threshold level, no conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the ongoing use and weather protection of this heritage building. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   A well maintained roof is part of ensuring the ongoing retention and protection of the heritage building;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Given the small size of the grant, it may be considered that the administration of the grant could outweigh its value, but it is the reasonable percentage of the amount that the applicant has requested to assist them in their repairs.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($3,081) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for the maintenance of a ‘Significant’ heritage building in Christchurch.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

23 Mandeville Street - Statement of Significance

161

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

17.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour

Reference:

18/631308

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to two buildings at 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $12,678 for conservation and repair work to the heritage buildings located at 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 1.4.2.0 Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places - 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy. Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the ongoing conservation and maintenance of two ‘Significant’ heritage buildings – the ‘Millhouse’, and the ‘Stables’. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The two heritage buildings are an important part of the experience offered to the public at Orton Bradley Park in Diamond Harbour and the grant will support one of the key values of the site – Heritage.

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The grant provides money for a charity, and there may well be a perception that they could apply for funding for this work from elsewhere, but it is noted that the Park Board has done this previously with other heritage items they own, and has not come to the Council for assistance.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       The Millhouse and Stables buildings at 1 Charteris Bay Road are both scheduled as ‘Significant’ Buildings in the Christchurch District Plan. They are also listed as Category 1 and Category 2 respectively with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The statement of significance for the buildings is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       The Former Bradley Estate, now known as Orton Bradley Park, was opened as a park in 1981, having been left in trust in 1943 with the intention that it become a National Park for the New Zealand people. The site did not meet the criteria for a National Park, leading to a delay in becoming any type of park, but it is now enjoyed by many who visit it to experience its core values of Sustainability, Biodiversity, Heritage, and Recreation. The Park Board is now requesting assistance with the repair of two structures on the site. The repair of the waterwheel on the Millhouse building, and the repairs to timberwork and re-painting of the entire building for the Stables. The Board has obtained help for other heritage buildings on its site through local builders, sponsorship, and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga.    

5.3       The Millhouse building is an important 19th Century farm building, which remains on its original site, and houses a rare collection of functioning machinery. Part of this is the historic waterwheel which, after work by the Park Board of clearing out and reinstating the water storage ponds, is once more able to be powered.

5.4       Work has already been undertaken on the internal spokes of the wheel and the Park Board now seeks assistance with replacing the ‘buckets’ that hold the water. This ensures that the waterwheel can be a functioning part of the site and can demonstrate, in conjunction with the machinery held inside the building, 19th Century farming practices to visitors. The board has a group of skilled volunteers that can carry out the work and are seeking grant assistance for the materials that are required.

Waterwheel, Millhouse, 1 Charteris Bay Road, September 2014

5.5       The Stables building housed horses, both for farm work and transport use, up until 1995. At that point it became a storage building for the park’s museum. The Stables are a large farm building dating from the late 19th Century. Originally a small utilitarian building with timber framing and main door, and corrugated iron walls and roof, they had more than doubled in size by around 1885 to the current large building.

5.6       The repairs to the timber structure and the painting of the entire building will enable the ongoing retention of this building which is part of the original estate. The Stables are a key part of the group of farm and relocated historic Charteris Bay buildings which are on this site, and like the Millhouse, the Stables remains in its original location.

The Stables, 1 Charteris Bay Road, September 2014

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested comprise of timber work to replace the bucket parts of the waterwheel on the Millhouse, and also repairs to damaged timber along with the cleaning and repainting of the entire Stables block.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to repair, and reconstruct the heritage form and fabric of the two buildings. With the completion of the works outlined the waterwheel will once more be functioning, and the stable buildings will be in a good state of repair enabling their ongoing use and retention.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Reconstruction of the waterwheel ‘buckets’

$1,905

Scaffolding for the Stables

$3,265

Timber repairs for the Stables

$6,100

Cleaning and painting of the Stables

$14,085

Total of structural, repair, and reconstruction work

$25,355

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The proposed work is repair and maintenance and is the sort of work envisaged when the Heritage Incentive Grant fund was originally set up. Although there is only a limited amount of available funding, and a high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project as the overall amount is not large, and it will cover works to two ‘Significant’ heritage items.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$12,678

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. As the grant amount will be below the threshold level, no conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the ongoing conservation and maintenance of two ‘Significant’ heritage buildings – the Millhouse, and the Stables. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The two heritage buildings are an important part of the experience offered to the public at Orton Bradley Park in Diamond Harbour and the grant will support one of the key values of the site – Heritage;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The grant provides money for a charity, and there may well be a perception that they could apply for funding for this work from elsewhere, but it is noted that the Park Board has done this previously with other heritage items they own, and has not come to the Council for assistance.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($7,607) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for the maintenance of two ‘Significant’ heritage buildings in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

1 Charteris Bay Road - Statement of Significance

175

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

18.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa

Reference:

18/688416

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $6,500 for repair work to the heritage building located at 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option):

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the ongoing conservation and maintenance of the heritage building at 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The heritage building is one of the earliest surviving cottages in Akaroa and is an attractive part of the streetscape and a good example of a mid-19th Century timber cottage;

·     This proposal is the type of works that the grant fund was intended for, ongoing maintenance and repair, namely the replacement of deteriorated roofing on the house and verandah;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       9A Aubrey Street is scheduled as ‘Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan, and it is listed as Category 2 with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The ‘Statement of Significance’ for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       The cottage has historical and social significance as one of the earliest cottages in Akaroa, and for its association with Captain James Bruce, who was one of Akaroa’s first European settlers, who established the Bruce Hotel on the foreshore of the town. The building is currently owned by Mr Andrew Simpson.

9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa, August 2018

5.3       The cottage is one of two that Captain Bruce built in the mid-1850s for members of his extended family when they immigrated to New Zealand. Both cottages still remain and are a key part of the streetscape in this area of Akaroa. The cottage remains as it originally was – a four room cottage, two rooms up and two down with an attic storey and rear lean-to. It is now a holiday home and so also has cultural significance as part of the story of Akaroa as a popular place to own a holiday home.

5.4       The current owners would like to repair their holiday home so that it can be retained and used on a regular basis. The repairs to the corrugated roof of the house and verandah are a key part of the ongoing retention of this building. Well maintained roofing is essential to the retention of heritage buildings in good repair, especially when they are constructed of timber frame and have weatherboard wall cladding.

6.   Option 1 – Fifty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested is the replacement of the corrugated iron roof, and bull nose verandah roof. The replacement will be in like-for-like material.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to repair the heritage fabric of the building. With the completion of the works the cottage will once again be in a good state of repair.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Replacement of the roof and bull nose verandah

$13,000

Total of structural, repair, and reconstruction work

$13,000

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The proposed work is repair and maintenance and is the sort of work envisaged when the Heritage Incentive Grant fund was originally set up. Although there is only a limited amount of available funding, and a high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of fifty percent would be appropriate for this project as the overall amount is not large, and it ensures the ongoing retention and protection of this building.

 

Proposed heritage grant (fifty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$6,500

 

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage areas and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. No conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the ongoing conservation and maintenance of the heritage building at 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The heritage building is one of the earliest surviving cottages in Akaroa and is an attractive part of the streetscape and a good example of a mid-19th Century timber cottage;

·   This proposal is the type of works that the grant fund was intended for, ongoing maintenance and repair, namely the replacement of deteriorated roofing on the house and verandah;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of thirty percent ($3,900) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for the maintenance of a ‘Significant' heritage building in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula at a time of significant heritage loss.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa - Statement of Significance

195

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

19.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/733348

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $63,808 for repair work to the heritage building located at 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Twenty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the repair and structural upgrade of this important Central City heritage building at 204 St Asaph Street. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The heritage building is important as a rare reminder of the history of heavy industry in this area, as it was formerly the P & D Duncan Foundry Building. The building was retained through its conversion to residential apartments and a retail store in the 1990s;

·     The building is also important as one of the few large-scale brick heritage buildings remaining in the Central City;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    The grant may seem a large amount of money to expend on a single building, but it is an important, three storey, formerly industrial brick building in the Central City where so much heritage has been lost following the Canterbury earthquakes and it is considered that the grant is warranted given the rarity now of this type of heritage building in Christchurch.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       204 St Asaph Street is scheduled as ‘Highly Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan, and it is listed as ‘Category 2’ with Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The ‘Statement of Significance’ for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       The building is highly significant both historically and socially as a former foundry and a rare remnant of the history of heavy industry in this area of the Central City. Completed in 1904, this building was part of a redevelopment of the site by P & D Duncan Ltd to replace its mid-19th Century buildings.

204 St Asaph Street, December 2014

5.3       The three storey building was designed by the early-20th Century Christchurch architectural firm, Clarkson and Ballantyne and is one of only a small number of pre-First World War commercial or industrial buildings that remain in the Central City. It is built of brick and stone, and has a parapet which contains the company’s name and dates. It was converted for residential and retail use in the 1990’s by the Christchurch architectural firm of Warren and Mahoney.

5.4       The building is owned by a number of private owners with the grant application being coordinated on their behalf by ‘Sidera Consulting’. As well as the standard earthquake repairs which the owners are carrying out with their insurance cover, the current owners would also like to strengthen the building to 70% of New Build Standard (NBS) to ensure the ongoing use and retention of this important building. It is the structural upgrade works that they are seeking grant assistance for.

6.   Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested are the works required to structurally upgrade the building to 70% NBS. This involves new foundations and ground floor, and strengthening to the upper floors and walls and the external parapets. The proposed grant would support the work necessary to structurally upgrade these heritage elements of the building.

6.2       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Deconstruction

$20,414

Floors

$20,353

Walls

$116,612

Ceilings

$10,189

Exterior – parapet, roof, balcony

$11,468

Site set up and provisional sums

$33,658

Total of structural upgrade work

$212,694

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. The proposed work is a structural upgrade which the fund has often supported since the Canterbury earthquakes. As there is only a limited amount of available funding, and a high demand on the grant fund, it is proposed that a grant of thirty percent would be appropriate for this project as the overall amount is relatively large. This amount will still help to ensure the ongoing use and retention of this building.

 

Proposed heritage grant (thirty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$63,808

 

Significance

6.4       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.6       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.7       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.8       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.9       Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.10    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.11    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

6.12    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.13    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.14    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A limited conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.15    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.17    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the repair and structural upgrade of this important Central City heritage building at 204 St Asaph Street. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The heritage building is important as a rare and unusual reminder of the history of heavy industry in this area, as it was formerly the P & D Duncan Foundry Building. The building was retained through its conversion to residential apartments and a retail store in the 1990s;

·   The building is also important as one of the few large-scale brick heritage buildings remaining in the Central City;

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The grant may seem a large amount of money to expend on a single building, but it is an important, three storey, formerly industrial brick building in the Central City where so much heritage has been lost following the Canterbury earthquakes and it is considered that the grant is warranted given the rarity now of this type of heritage building in Christchurch.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of twenty percent ($42,539) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage level of works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a lower level of support from Council for the structural upgrade of a ‘Highly Significant’ heritage building in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, which would help to ensure the use and retention a heritage building at a time of significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in the Central City.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

204 St Asaph Street - Statement of Significance

205

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

20.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

18/743559

Contact:

Brendan Smyth

Brendan.smyth@ccc.govt.nz

9418934

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant for work to the building at 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding from the building’s owner.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $21,554 for repair work to the protected heritage building located at 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Heritage education, advocacy and advice:

·     Level of Service 1.4.2: Support the conservation and enhancement of the city’s heritage places. Future Performance: 100% of approved grant applications are allocated in accordance with the policy;

·     Level of Service 1.4.3: Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred option);

·     Option 2 - Twenty per cent grant support of eligible items.

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (of the Preferred Option).

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will ensure the ongoing retention, maintenance, repair and conservation of this heritage building at 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The heritage building is part of the development of Lyttelton in the 19th Century and is on a highly visible corner site in the town. Dating from the 1860s its scale and design reflects the period, but there have been some unsympathetic alterations over time which the grant will help to remedy;

·     The works proposed in this grant application will reinstate important heritage elements to the cottage, most notably reinstating a metal roof, and timber sash windows in place of architecturally unsympathetic aluminium windows;

·     The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The grant is for a single, relatively small building.  However, the grant would not be a large percentage of the total annual fund or a large grant relative to the overall amount that the owner is preparing to spend on the building.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building Status

5.1       53 Oxford Street is scheduled as ‘Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan, and is within Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga’s Lyttelton Historic Area. The ‘Statement of Significance’ for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

5.2       The building is significant both historically and socially as a visibly prominent part of the 19th Century development of Lyttelton. Built in the 1860s the dwelling dates from a time when Lyttelton was undergoing a period of significant growth.

53 Oxford Street, September 2012

5.3       The one and a half storey dwelling constructed in timber frame with weatherboard cladding, was designed to work with the slopes of Lyttelton and its close proximity to the public street is a prime example of the historic pattern of development which forms the urban character associated with the town. It is part of a group of dwellings which all date from the 19th Century, forming a significant streetscape element in the town.

5.4       The current owners would like to undertake works to reinstate important heritage features of the dwelling which have been lost. These are the replacement of a later ‘Decramastic’ tile roof with a more traditional corrugated metal roof and the replacement of two architecturally unsympathetic aluminium windows with timber sash windows. This will return key areas of the dwelling to their previous form and appearance. The owners also wish to repaint the building with a more sympathetic colour scheme.

5.5       Sarah Amazinnia, the owner who has applied for the grant, works for Christchurch City Council, and has signed a Conflict of Interest form with regards to this project.

6.   Option 1 – Thirty per cent grant support of eligible items (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested are the works required to reinstate a metal roof, replace two aluminium windows with timber sash windows, and for repair and maintenance works which include weatherboard replacement and repainting of the building.

6.2       The proposed grant would support the work necessary to reinstate the heritage features and undertake the repair and maintenance works.

6.3       All relevant costs of the works have been summarised as outlined in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Preparation and scaffolding

$9,120

Painting

$16,450

Roof replacement

$22,800

Repairs

$13,043

Window replacement

$10,434

Total cost of the works

$71,847

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. Given the multiple issues covered with this proposal – reinstatement of heritage, repairs, and maintenance – and the high visibility of the site within Lyttelton it is suggested that a grant of 30% is appropriate. This will ensure the continuing use and maintenance of this building.

 

Proposed heritage grant (thirty per cent of cost of itemised works)

$21,554

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with Section 2 of this report.  There are no engagement requirements in the Operational Guidelines or Policy for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.7       The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       The recommendations of this report align with the relevant strategies, plans and policies as listed below:

·           Christchurch Central Recovery Plan

·           Christchurch District Plan

·           Heritage Conservation Policy

·           Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·           New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·           International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) New Zealand Charter 1993

The Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all HIG applications presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

 

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund 2018/2019     

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (30%)

 $76,342

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (30%)

$88,650

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (50%)

$12,678

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (50%)

$5,136

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (50%)

$6,500

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (30%)

$63,808

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (30%)

$21,554

Total Available Funds remaining for 2018/2019

$423,032

 

6.10    Further grant applications have been received by Council staff and it is expected that more will arise throughout the coming financial year.   Staff believe that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time and that the Committee will be able to allocate funds to new applications received later in the financial year.

6.11    The Strategic Planning and Policy activity includes the provision of heritage advice, the heritage grants schemes, and the confirmation of a Heritage Strategy for Council. The Council aims to maintain and protect built, cultural and natural heritage items, areas and values which contribute to a unique city, community identity, character and sense of place and provide links to the past. The Council promotes heritage as a valuable educational and interpretation resource which also contributes to the tourism industry and provides an economic benefit to the City.

6.12    Heritage Incentive Grants and conservation covenants provide financial assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

6.13    Funding source - The Heritage Incentive Grant budget is an annual fund provided for in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Legal Implications

6.14    Limited conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is required for grants of $150,000 or more.

6.15    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. A limited conservation covenant will be required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.16    The grant scheme only allows funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies - The grant recipient is expected to acquire all resource, building and other consents required for the works.

6.18    Implementation timeframe - The grant recipient has an eighteen month time period to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will ensure the ongoing retention, maintenance, repair and conservation of this heritage building at 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton. This application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines.

·   The heritage building is part of the development of Lyttelton in the 19th Century and is on a highly visible corner site in the town. Dating from the 1860s its scale and design reflects the period, but there have been some architecturally unsympathetic alterations over time which the grant will help to remedy.

·   The works proposed in this grant application will reinstate important heritage elements to the building, most notably reinstating a metal roof, and timber sash windows in place of unsympathetic aluminium windows.

·   The amount of grant is within the budget of the grant fund for the 2018/2019 financial year.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The grant is for a single, relatively small building.  However, the grant would not be a large percentage of the total annual fund or a large grant relative to the overall amount that the building owner is preparing to spend on the building.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lower grant of twenty percent ($14,369) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table illustrates the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

Annual Budget for the Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) fund                           

$697,700

Proposed grant to 41 Ranfurly Street, Christchurch (20%)

 $50,895

Proposed grant to 201 High Street, Christchurch (20%)

$59,100

Proposed grant to 1 Charteris Bay Road, Diamond Harbour (30%)

$7,607

Proposed grant to 23 Mandeville Street, Riccarton (30%)

$3,081

Proposed grant to 9A Aubrey Street, Akaroa (30%)

$3,900

Proposed grant to 204 St Asaph Street, Christchurch (20%)

$42,539

Proposed grant to 53 Oxford Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$14,369

Total Available Funds remaining with lower grant offers for 2018/2019

$516,209

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   Relative to Option 1, this is a lower level of financial commitment from the Council which will leave more funds available for other projects.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a much lower level of support from Council for the conservation and repair works to a highly visible, ‘Significant’ heritage building in Lyttelton, works which would ensure its ongoing maintenance and heritage values at a time following significant loss and damage to heritage buildings in Lyttelton and the rest of the city.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

53 Oxford Street - Statement of Significance

215

 

 

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

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

21.    Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update October 2018

Reference:

18/956476

Contact:

Darren Moses

Darren.moses@ccc.govt.nz

021377023

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to be informed of the current status of the priority earthquake repair and rebuild projects being delivered by Facilities Rebuild team.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated.

2.   Significance

2.1       Not applicable to this information-only report. 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receives the information in the Community Facilities Rebuild Monthly Update report.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This information-only report provides a quarterly programme update on some of the key Community Facilities Rebuild activities for October 2018.

4.2       A summary of the Community Facilities projects and Heritage Facilities can be found in Attachment One.

4.3       The majority of the earthquake repair and rebuild programme is currently scheduled to be completed by the end of 2019/2020 Financial Year.  The programme is also tracking to be delivered within the budget envelope set by Council in the original 2015-2025 LTP, with a potential to return a whole of programme surplus.

 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       The Council has committed to running a major earthquake repair and rebuild programme.  This work is undertaken by the Facilities Rebuild team in the Citizens and Community Group.

5.2       Since 2012, this team have delivered numerous repairs and rebuild of key suburban Council facilities all over Christchurch City and across Banks Peninsula.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Social & Community Development Committee October 2018 Community Facilities Rebuild and Heritage bimonthly Report_attachment 1

221

 

 

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

Darren Moses - Manager Capital Delivery Community

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 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

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

22.  Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

03 October 2018

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

23

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 September 2018

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

24

Public Excluded Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 10 September 2018

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.