Waitai

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                     Monday 18 February 2019

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Kim Money

Tim Sintes

Tim Baker

David East

Glenn Livingstone

Linda Stewart

 

 

13 February 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Jo Wells

Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

941 6451

jo.wells@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/

 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

C       7.       Correspondence............................................................................................................. 13

Staff Reports

C/A   8.       Travis Road & Bower Avenue 40km/hr Variable Speed Limit (School Speed Zone) and Frosts Road Permanent Speed Limit Change.............................................................. 17

C       9.       Aranui A-Town Boxing Gym.......................................................................................... 29

B       10.     Aranui and Shirley Vacuum Sewer Systems................................................................ 49

C       11.     Coastal-Burwood 2018/19 Youth Development Fund Report - Logan Roberts....... 67

 

B       12.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange.................................................................... 69 

 

 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Declarations of Interest

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

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting held on Monday, 4 February 2019  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

There will be no public forum at this meeting

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

 

5.1

Aileen Trist, resident of Parklands will speak to her correspondence at item 7 regarding Taiora QEII

 

5.2

Evan Smith, Spokesperson for the Avon-Ōtākaro Network, will speak to the Travis Road & Bower Avenue 40km/hr Variable Speed Limit (School Speed Zone) and Frosts Road Permanent Speed Limit Change report at item 7

 

5.3

Monica Davis will speak on behalf of Avonside Girls High School regarding the Travis Road and Bower Avenue School Speed Zone and Frost Road speed limit change report 7 on the agenda.

  

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

 

Waitai

Coastal-Burwood Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Monday 4 February 2019

Time:                                    4.30pm

Venue:                                 Boardroom, Corner Beresford and Union Streets,
New Brighton

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Kim Money

Tim Sintes

Tim Baker

David East

Glenn Livingstone

Linda Stewart

 

 

4 February 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Jo Wells

Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

941 6451

jo.wells@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

To view copies of Agendas and Minutes, visit:
www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/meetings-agendas-and-minutes/

 


  

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00001

Community Board Decision

That the apology for lateness from David East, be accepted.

Glenn Livingstone/Tim Sintes                                                                                                                                Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00002

Community Board Decision

That the minutes of the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board meeting held on Monday, 3 December 2018, along with the Public Excluded minutes from the 3 December 2018 be confirmed.

Tim Baker/Linda Stewart                                                                                                                                          Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

4.1       Spencerville Residents Association

Denis Gilmore and Rene Howison, representing Spencerville Residents Association spoke to their concerns about a proposed subdivision on Spencerville Road, including water quality and flooding.

 

4.2       Christchurch Beautifying Association

Ron Andrew from the Christchurch Beautifying Association spoke to the Board on the projects and work that the Christchurch Beautifying Association do such as the Street/Garden and Community Pride awards.

 

4.3       South Brighton Residents Association

Hugo Kristinsson from the South Brighton Residents Association, spoke to the board about Coastal Futures.

 

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

5.1

Christchurch Beautifying Association

Ron Andrew on behalf of Christchurch Beautifying Association spoke to his correspondence (item 7 refers) on the Street/Garden and Community Pride Awards.

The Association expressed their commitment to working with the Board in a positive partnership relationship, and their hopes of holding an awards ceremony within the Coastal-Burwood ward in 2019.

The Chairperson thanked Ron Andrew for his deputation.

 

5.2

Spencerville Residents Association

Denis Gilmore and Rene Howison of the Spencerville Residents Association, spoke regarding their Association’s correspondence (item 7 refers). They expressed concerns around the private gate entrances within the community centre carpark and the timeframe in which the sealing of the carpark has been allocated. The association also displayed photographs showing the condition of the playground on Seabrooke Drive, Spencerville.

The Chairperson thanked Denis Gilmore and Rene Howison for their deputation.

 

 

5.3       East Christchurch Shirley Cricket Club

 Angus McLeod and Nicola Smith spoke on behalf of East Christchurch Shirley Cricket Club in support of the Burwood Park Junior Cricket Wicket report (item 8 refers). They advised of the fundraising the club had undertaken to ensure the future of cricket in the area.

In response to a question from the Board, they advised the preferred site, while being adjacent to the senior cricket wickets, provides a necessary separation for the juniors and allows for a concrete wicket to be installed. They have no other preferred site.

The Chairperson thanked Angus McLeod and Nicola Smith for their deputation.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

7.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 04 February 2019

 

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00003

Part B

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 04 February 2019

2.         In relation to Mr Smith’s correspondence, requests staff consider undertaking any necessary maintenance works including filling and seeding any areas in Ironwood Reserve to make it safe for play

3.         Request that staff provide advice regarding the request from the Christchurch Beautifying Association to hold Garden Pride Awards in the ward in 2019

4.         Request that staff follow up on the issues raised by the Spencerville Residents’ Association in their correspondence

5.         Request staff to thank Isobelle Doig for her feedback and advise that the issue of the Shaw Avenue public toilets will be considered by staff and we will inform her as soon as possible

6.         Notes that the request from Sam Hawkins of the South Brighton Holiday Park has been actioned with the removal of the identified unsafe trees in South Brighton Domain

Linda Stewart left the meeting at 5:42 p.m.

Kim Money/Tim Sintes                                                                                                                                             Carried

 

8.   Burwood Park Junior Cricket Wicket

 

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00004(Original staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approve East Shirley Cricket Club’s development of a junior cricket pitch on the site of the former bowls club in Burwood Park

Tim Baker/Tim Sintes                                                                                                                                                 Carried

 

 

9.   Queenspark Reserve - Lighting application from Parklands Rugby Football Club Incorporated

 

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00005(Original staff recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

3.1       That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board recommend that the Head of Parks approve: 

3.1.1   The installation of two new sportsfield lighting poles on Queenspark Reserve, as shown in Attachment A, by Parklands Rugby Football Club Inc. subject to the conditions in clause 3.1.3.

3.1.2   The upgrading of two existing sportsfield lighting poles on the section of Queenspark Reserve that is managed by Christchurch City Council, but owned by the Ministry of Education, as shown in Attachment A, by Parklands Rugby Football Club Incorporated, subject to the conditions in clause 3.1.3, and final approval from the Ministry of Education.

3.1.3   Approval of the lighting is subject to the following conditions:

·     The applicant obtaining any necessary resource consents and building consent at their cost before commencing installation of the lighting system on the park.

·     The applicant being responsible for ensuring that they or the contractors they engage are responsible for obtaining plans of all services presently laid underground in the park (including electricity, telecommunications, sewerage, stormwater, high water, water supply and irrigation). 

·     The applicant being required to deposit scaled plans showing the lighting poles and cable layout in the park, as built, within two months of the work being completed.

·     The applicant being responsible for all costs associated with the installation, maintenance, and insurance, of the lighting system.

·     The applicant being responsible for ensuring that the lighting system is maintained in a safe and tidy condition at all times.

·     That the lights are operated on a maximum of four nights per week (Monday to Thursday) from April to September.

·     That the lights are not operated after 8.30pm and an automatic cut-off switch is installed to this effect.

·     The applicant is to pay a bond of $2000 to the council via the Parks Advisor, Parks Sector North, before any construction work commences on the site. The bond, less any expenses incurred by the Council, will be refunded to the payee on completion of the development to a standard acceptable to the Head of Parks or their designate.

·     This approval will lapse if the development is not completed within two years of the date of the letter of approval from the Head of Parks. 

Tim Baker/Kim Money                                                                                                                                              Carried

 

Linda Stewart returned to the meeting at 6:01 p.m..

 

10. Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report - February 2019

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Receive the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report for February 2019.

2.         Note for information purposes the Board’s feedback to the Council on the Ōtākaro -Avon River Corridor Draft Regeneration Plan.

3.         Consider member attendance to the Community Boards Conference 2019 being held in New Plymouth, including an entry for the Best Practice Excellence Awards being held as part of the conference.

4.         Amend the 2019 Board meeting schedule to replace the approved 15 July 2019 Board meeting with 22 July 2019 in order to avoid meeting during the Council’s recess week.

5.         Provide a letter of support to Environment Canterbury for the Riverside Festival event being held between 1pm – 4pm on either 24 or 31 March 2019.

 

 

Community Board Resolved CBCB/2019/00006

Part B

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Receive the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Area Report for February 2019.

2.         Note for information purposes the Board’s feedback to the Council on the Ōtākaro -Avon River Corridor Draft Regeneration Plan.

3.         Consider and advise staff of interest in attending the Community Boards Conference 2019 being held in New Plymouth, including an entry for the Best Practice Excellence Awards being held as part of the conference.

4.         Amend the 2019 Board meeting schedule to replace the approved 15 July 2019 Board meeting with 22 July 2019 in order to avoid meeting during the Council’s recess week.

5.         Provide a letter of support to Environment Canterbury for the Riverside Festival event being held between 1pm – 4pm on either 24 or 31 March 2019.

6.         Request staff to review the Dog signage at Waimairi, North Beach and Brighton to assess if the size and placement is appropriate.

7.         Request staff to provide a briefing to the Board on dog control matters in the Board’s area.

8.         Provide a letter of thanks to Grace Vineyard Church for their contribution towards the cost and hanging of festive decorations on the New Brighton Clock tower.

 

Kim Money/Tim Sintes                                                                                                                                             Carried

 

 

Glenn Livingstone left the meeting at 06:30 p.m.

11. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

11.1        The Board requested staff to follow up on Hawke Street public carpark condition         concerns.

11.2        Staff undertook to seek advice on the process for proposed art work on the new        Thomson Park toilets.

 

 

 

 

 

   

Meeting concluded at 6.53pm

 

CONFIRMED THIS 18th DAY OF February 2019

 

Kim Money

Chairperson

   


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

7.        Correspondence

Reference:

19/127985

Presenter(s):

Peter Croucher , Board Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

Correspondence has been received from:

Name

Subject

Aileen Trist, Parklands Resident

Taiora QEII

Helen Rhodes

Parking Wattle Drive

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 18 February 2019

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Coastal-Burwood Community Board - 18 Feb 2019 - Inwards Correspondence  –  Aileen Trist, resident of Parklands - Taiora QEII

14

b

Coastal-Burwood Community Board 18- Inwards Correspondence – Helen Rhodes Parking Wattle Drive

15

 

 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

8.        Travis Road & Bower Avenue 40km/hr Variable Speed Limit (School Speed Zone) and Frosts Road Permanent Speed Limit Change

Reference:

19/88882

Presenter(s):

Wayne Gallot (Traffic Engineer) & Tessa Zant (Senior Engagement Advisor)

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to endorse the installation of two new 40 km/h variable speed limit (school speed zone) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, and the setting of a permanent 50 km/h speed limit on Frosts Road.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to formal requests received from Avonside Girls High School (AGHS) and Shirley Boys High School (SBHS) to have the school speed zones installed on Travis Road and Bower Avenue. The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road is also in response to requests from AGHS, SBHS and community Police.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

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

1.         Approve, pursuant to Part 4 Section 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that speed limits on Travis Road, Bower Avenue and Frosts Road be revoked and set as identified in Attachment A (HPRM 19/95764) and listed below in Clauses 1a – 1d including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps;

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 70 kilometres per hour on Frosts Road, commencing at its intersection with Travis Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 100  metres south of Beach Road.

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Frosts Road, commencing at its intersection with Travis Road and extending in a northerly direction to a point 100  metres south of Beach Road, be set at 50 kilometres per hour.

c.         Approve that a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit (school speed zone) be set on Travis Road, commencing at a point 110 metres east of Frosts Road and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of 600 metres, as it meets the requirements of the New Zealand Gazette Notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

d.         Approve that a 40 kilometres per hour variable speed limit (school speed zone) be set on Bower Avenue, commencing at a point 100 metres north of Travis Road and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 385 metres, as it meets the requirements of the New Zealand Gazette Notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 1284) including the times of operation.

2.         Approve the speed limit changes listed in Clauses 1a – 1d above come into force following the date of Council approval, installation of all required infrastructure (signage and/or markings) and removal of obsolete infrastructure (as indicated in Attachment A), and the required notice being provided to NZTA and NZ Police in accordance with Section 2.7(6) of Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support any specific levels of service identified in the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Establish 40 km/h variable speed limits (school speed zones) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, and reduce the permanent speed limit to 50 km/h on Frosts Road in accordance with Attachment A (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road will help to reduce operational speeds, and therefore improve safety.

·     The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road will support the safe operation of a new signalised pedestrian crossing proposed by NZTA.

·     The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road provides increased consistency with existing speed limits on Travis Road, Beach Road and Mairehau Road, and therefore helps to improve credibility of speed limits locally and nationally.

·     The proposed 40 km/h variable speed limit (school speed zones) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue will reduce operational speeds on these roads, and therefore improve safety, during peak school travel times.

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Increased amount of signage on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, as well as side roads, within the proposed school speed zones.

 

5.   Context/Background

Context

5.1       New school facilities are currently being built for Avonside Girls High School (AGHS) and Shirley Boys High School (SBHS) on land that was formally part of QE II Park. The new schools will become operational at the beginning of the second term of this year (29 April 2019).

5.2       The new schools have direct frontage to both Travis Road and Bower Avenue. Increased numbers of all road users (including vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians) associated with the new schools are anticipated on Travis Road, Bower Avenue and Frosts Road.

Background

5.3       During the consenting processes to establish the new schools on the QE II Park site, Council staff worked closely with external agencies including the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to identify and consider transport infrastructure changes that would be necessary to support development of the schools whilst minimising impacts on transport level of service. Part of that process, and Council staff participation, included an NZTA-led “Safer Journeys to School” working group.

5.4       In addition to a number of road layout improvements for Travis Road and Bower Avenue that were identified through that process (and have now largely been completed), Council committed to consider the installation of a school speed zone on Travis Road that was to be fully funded by MoE. To that end, MoE has provided Council a financial contribution of $55,000 to cover the costs of a school speed zone on Travis Road.

5.5       In response to concerns raised about pedestrian safety crossing Frosts Road, Council staff have been working with NZTA to develop an NZTA proposal for a signalised pedestrian crossing north of the Anzac-Frosts-Travis roundabout. That project is being funded and progressed by NZTA, separate to this Council proposal for the school speed zones and the Frosts Road speed limit change.

5.6       Council also has an ongoing commitment to improve road safety. Reducing excessive vehicle speeds, where appropriate, outside schools during peak arrival and departure periods improves safety for children. Council has a programme of installing 40 km/h variable speed limits (school speed zones) outside schools according to a prioritisation process. This process, including the methodology behind it, was endorsed on 25 August 2011 by the Council as the most appropriate method of improving road safety outside certain schools, where no other traffic control devices are practical or feasible.

5.7       Council staff have continued a close working relationship with AGHS and SBHS following the consenting process, to identify and consider various transport safety and travel planning matters. Local community Police have also been involved in that process, which led to formal requests being received by Council for the installation of school speed zones on Travis Road and Bower Avenue as well as a request to consider a reduced speed limit on Frosts Road.

5.8       Prior to finalising the current proposal, technical advice and preliminary feedback was obtained from NZTA (in their regulatory capacity). The current proposal, including the school speed zone sign locations and also the reduced speed limit on Frosts Road, is supported by NZTA.


 

6.   Option 1 - Establish 40 km/h variable speed limits (school speed zones) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, and reduce the permanent speed limit to 50 km/h on Frosts Road (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Install the 40 km/h variable speed limits (school speed zones) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, and reduce the permanent speed limit on Frosts Road to 50 km/h, as shown in Attachment A.

6.2       Electronic signs are proposed to be installed at the start of each zone on the north side of Travis Road to the east of Frosts Road, on the south side of Travis Road to the west of Bower Avenue, on the west side of Bower Avenue to the north of Travis Road and on the east side of Bower Avenue to the north of Marriotts Road. Signs installed on the opposite side of the road, will advise road users that they are exiting the school speed zone. Signs identifying the start and end of the school speed zones will be installed on all side roads (Atlantis Street, Blue Gum Place, Wattle Drive, Saltaire Street, Marriotts Road and Ascot Avenue). Appropriate warning ‘children’ and ‘school’ signs will also be installed as required in accordance with legislative requirements and national guidelines. Localised footpath widening is proposed outside No.219/221 Bower Avenue to ensure that an adequate footpath width is maintained past the proposed electronic school speed zone sign in this location.

6.3       As required by the conditions listed in the New Zealand Gazette (see the Legal Implications Section below), the school speed zones will operate on school days for no more than 35 minutes in the morning, and 20 minutes in the afternoon.  The proposed operating times will be aligned to the schools’ start and end times, once these are confirmed.

6.4       Existing signage on Frosts Road associated with the current 70 km/h speed limit will be removed, or possibly relabelled and repositioned to act as repeater (reminder) 50 km/h speed limit signage. Additional infrastructure (eg signage and markings) to support the reduced speed limit may be considered in future once the schools become operational.

Significance

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

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       AGHS and SBHS communities and local residents are specifically affected by this option due to the improved safety provide by changes to the speed limits on neighbouring roads.

6.8       Consultation on the proposal ran from 20 December 2018 to 28 January 2019.

6.9       An email notification was sent to key and local stakeholders, residents of the affected roads were door knocked, and absentee owners were sent a letter. A message also went out in the QEII newsletter which has a reach of approx. 700.

Consultation Feedback

6.10    In total 47 submissions were received and most were in support. See Attachment B (19/101657) for a list of all submissions.

6.11    Of the 38 comments about the school speed zone, 35 were in support, one wanted a smaller zone, one was not in support and one was about an out of scope matter.

6.11.1          Of those in support of the School Speed Zone 15 wanted additional restrictions, such as a lower speed, permanent speed change, and extension of the School Speed Zone.

6.12    Of the 42 comments about the speed reduction on Frosts Road, 27 were in support, 13 were not in support and two commented about an out of scope matter.

6.12.1 Those opposed to the proposal mentioned the lack of driveways, wide cycleway / footpath, existing crossing points and pupils using other routes, as reasons to maintain the current 70kmph speed limit.

6.13    Feedback was received on a range of out of scope issues, including the intersection of Frosts and Travis Road and parking generated by the schools. A new crossing on Frosts road should address some of these concerns and parking around the schools will be monitored once they are operational.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.15    Cost of Implementation – approximately $80,000.

6.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – covered under the area maintenance contract and effects will be minimal to the overall asset.

6.17    Funding source – allocated funding in the 2018/2019 Traffic Operations capital expenditure budget (including the $55,000 financial contribution received from MoE).

Legal Implications

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

6.19    The interpretation Act 1999 provides for the New Gazette notice (21/04/2011, Number 55, page 128) and NZTA Traffic Note 37 to have continued effect, despite those documents being established under (and referring to) the now repealed Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2003.

6.20    The Council’s Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 allows the Council to set and change speed limits on roads in Christchurch in accordance with the Land Transport Rule: Setting Speed Limits 2017 and the Land Transport Act 1998.

6.21    In accordance with the Christchurch City Council Delegations Register, Council has not delegated its powers under the above legislative framework.

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.23    None identified.

Implementation

6.24    Implementation dependencies - dependant on Community Board endorsement and Council approval for eth proposed speed limit changes.

6.25    Implementation timeframe – Installed by 30 April 2019 (start of second school term)

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.26    The advantages of this option include:

·   The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road will help to reduce operational speeds, and therefore improve safety.

·   The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road will support the safe operation of a new signalised pedestrian crossing proposed by NZTA.

·   The proposed 50 km/h permanent speed limit on Frosts Road provides increased consistency with existing speed limits on Travis Road, Beach Road and Mairehau Road, and therefore helps to improve credibility of speed limits locally and nationally.

·   The proposed 40 km/h variable speed limit (school speed zones) on Travis Road and Bower Avenue will reduce operational speeds on these roads, and therefore improve safety, during peak school travel times.

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

6.27    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Increased amount of signage on Travis Road and Bower Avenue, as well as side roads, within the proposed school speed zones.

7.   Option 2 – Do nothing

Option Description

7.1       Retain existing 70 km/h speed limit on Frosts Road and do not install the proposed 40 km/h variable speed limit school speed zones on Travis Road or Bower Avenue.

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.4       As a road safety project, this option was not consulted on. Refer to Section 6.7 for community views and preferences relating to the preferred option, which includes feedback that does not support the preferred option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.6       Cost of Implementation – cost of staff time investigating the proposal and preparing report.

7.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – not applicable

7.8       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.9       Not applicable.

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    None identified.

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies - not applicable

7.12    Implementation timeframe – not applicable

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No additional cost to Council.

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It does not address the safety concerns and preferences of the schools, community and other stakeholders.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Travis Rd - Bower Ave School Speed Zone and Frosts Rd Speed Limit Change Plan (tg133450)

22

b

Travis Rd - Bower Ave School Speed Zone and Frosts Rd Speed Limit Change Submissions Table (PUBLIC)

23

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Wayne Gallot - Traffic Engineer

Tessa Zant - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Ryan Rolston - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

9.        Aranui A-Town Boxing Gym

Reference:

18/351086

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 Coastal-Burwood Community Board to consider a number of matters:

(i)            the future of the Wainoni Park Youth Activity Centre building including leasing or sale and transfer of ownership of the building to A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated; and

(ii)           if maintaining ownership of the building, the Community Board granting a lease of the building and land to A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated; or

(iii)          if transferring ownership of the building,  the Community Board granting a ground lease to A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated based on discussions between Council Community Governance officers and Trustees of A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated and a proposal from them to repair and lease or purchase the building.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by:

·     Low number of people affected and/or with an interest being the Aranui/Wainoni community and participants in the A-Town Boxing Gym programmes.

·     Low level of community interest already apparent for the proposal or decision.

·     Low level of impact on Council carrying out its roles and functions.

·     Medium level of possible benefits and opportunities to the wider community in taking ownership of the building.

·     Medium level of significance in reversing a decision if the A-Town Boxing Gym is unable to raise funds to repair the building and abandons the project.

·     There is a high level of significance if Council were to retain ownership of the building and complete the repairs as it is not an item in the Long Term Plan.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approve the granting of a lease to A-Town Boxing Gym for the Wainoni Park Youth Activity Centre building and land.

2.         Acknowledge that the A-Town Boxing Gym will carry out any repairs to the building.

3.         Acknowledge that public advertising in accordance with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977 has been completed and that no submissions or objections have been received.

4.         Recommend that the Chief Executive, in her capacity of holding the Minister of Conservation's Delegation, gives consent to the lease in accordance with 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.         Authorise the Property Consultancy Manager to finalising lease documentation to A-Town Boxing Gym for a period of up to 33 years broken into three 11 year terms at an annual rental of $1.

 

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the :

4.1.1   Activity: Community Development and Facilities

·     Level of Service: 2.0.1.2 Provide a range of well utilised community facilities, including voluntary libraries - Community Facility Plan adopted

·    

4.1.2   Activity: Recreation, Sport, Community Arts & Events

·     Level of Service: 7.0.3.1 Support citizen and partner organisations to develop, promote and deliver recreational sport in Christchurch.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1– Council Maintains Ownership of the Building and Grants Lease with Club Completing Repairs (preferred option)

·     Option 2 - Council Undertake Repairs and Maintains Ownership of the Building and Grants Lease for Occupation

·     Option 3 - Transfer Ownership of Building and Grant Ground Lease

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The building is repaired at no cost to the Council.

·     The Club has a permanent home at Wainoni Park to continue to promote their programmes.

·     Helps to build and sustain a sense of local community

·     Ensures that the community has access to facilities that meets their needs.

·     Increases participation in community recreation and sport programmes and events

·     Enhances the safety of communities and neighbourhoods.

·     Improves basic life skills so that all residents can participate in society.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Dealing unilaterally with the Trust may be seen as limiting the uses for the property and prevents any other interested parties from having an opportunity to enter into a lease with the Council or have the ability to purchase the building.

·     The use of the land is limited to utilisation for recreational activities which reduces the types of groups that would meet the criteria for occupation.

4.4       The preferred option meets community outcomes and brings no additional costs to the Council as building owner in repairing and maintaining a building that has no identified operational use.

The request for formal occupation of The Bunker by A-Town Boxing Gym is well known to the local community and members of the Coastal-Burwood Community Board.

 

Representatives of A-Town have spoken to elected members and a seminar was held with the Board in December 2018.  Initial discussions were based on ownership of the building being transferred to A-Town, however A-Town has made the decision that they would prefer to have a lease of the building and carry out the repairs through their funding efforts.

 

The granting of a lease to provide a permanent home to A-Town meets the Council’s community outcomes by helping to build a strong community.

 

Taking a holistic approach, this matter is not only about providing a permanent home for A-Town; but providing the participants with a safe place to hang out, learn discipline team work, and gain confidence and values that will assist them to become valued and contributing members of their community.

 

(Refer to Option 1 for an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages to this preferred option.)

 

5.   Context/Background

The Land and Buildings

5.1       The Wainoni Park Youth Activity Centre (the “Bunker”) is located on Wainoni Park at 31 Hampshire Street, Aranui, as shown in Attachment A. 

5.2       The legal description of the land is Part Reserve 5208, held as fee simple subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 now repealed and replaced by the Reserves Act 1977.  The land is held for recreation purposes. 

5.3       The Bunker is a single storey structure consisting of a large octagonal central space with a small kitchen addition on the eastern side and a boxing ring on the western side.  The building is approximately 22m x 9.8m wide.

5.4       The Bunker was built in the 1960s with the western addition added at a later date.  The building is constructed of reinforced concrete masonry walls, concrete slab flooring with lightweight profiled metal sheet roofing.

5.5       Post-earthquakes the building was assessed as being 76% NBS.  There was some hairline cracking but the building was in good condition and no potential critical structural weaknesses were identified.  A geotechnical report concluded that the existing foundations to the building were adequate but there was a risk of settlement occurring in a future seismic event.

5.6       An arson attack on 15th June 2014 caused damage to part of the building.  A Fire Damage Asset Assessment, prepared in 2016 by Evan Medland, Council’s Strategic Property Analyst, is attached for reference (Attachment B). 

A-Town Boxing Gym

5.7       A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated (the Club) is registered with New Zealand Companies Office.

5.8       The Club has been based at the Bunker since 2005.

5.9       The Club’s main purpose is to provide youth of Aranui and the wider community with the opportunity to participate and learn about the sport of boxing, ensuring that they are involved in the decisions that affect their future, offering guidance and support with discipline, proper health, nutrition and prevention of injuries.  The Club’s programmes are fully supported by the local community including the Police.

5.10    The Club is a member of Boxing New Zealand Association Incorporated.

5.11    Club members pay a low subscription fee for training sessions to assist with the running of the Club.

Current Hire Arrangements

5.12    The Club currently hires the Bunker through the Council’s Community Facilities booking system.

5.13    The Club hires out the building 3 hours per week and keeps their equipment in the building on a permanent basis.  There are no other groups using the Bunker.  Hire fees are currently $13.50 per hour.  The Club has not been charged a hire fee due to the fire damage and continues to utilise the building for training.  The Club has hired the building for more than 13 years with no other organisation hiring out the building.  There is a community centre on the adjoining land that provides facilities to the general public.

Proposal

5.14    In April 2016 Council staff had discussions with the Club and advised that it was not economical for Council to repair the Bunker.  Staff met with the Club to discuss future utilisation of the building and the Club proposed to officers that they undertake the repairs and secure a long term future at the Bunker either by way of a lease or purchase or gifting of the building.

5.15    The Club indicated that they wanted to raise funds required to repair the building through a fundraising campaign and grant funding.  The Club has currently raised $5000 through a donation from Westpac Bank Corporation.  Further fundraising is on hold awaiting a decision from the Council regarding their proposal to buy or be gifted the building or obtain a long-term lease.  The Club’s intention will be to approach such organisations at the Rata Foundation and NZCT.

5.16    The Club has been offered pro-bono the services of a local professional fundraiser who has had success with other local projects.

5.17    The Club and Council obtained estimates for repairs to the Bunker as detailed below:

A-Town

Jul-17

Private Contractor

 $  188,034.00

Estimate (includes roof repair/replacement)

Council

Jul-14

Council Contractor

 $  192,345.00

Estimate including roof replacement

All validity periods for all estimates have expired and estimates would need to be updated.  The above data is provided to provide an indication of the cost involved.

5.18    Following a meeting with the Club in November, officers were advised that the Club would prefer a lease of the building and land and that they would undertake any repairs to make it fit for their purposes.

Building Valuation and Rental Assessment 

5.19    The building’s book value is currently $151,021.  This is an impaired value which takes into account the fire damage and reflects its current value.

5.20    A separate market valuation to determine the building value and a comparable market rental was undertaken in January 2018. 

5.21    In summary, the valuer made the following assessments:

Value as repaired

 $  200,000.00

Value as is

 $  150,000.00

Rental - comparative commercial basis

 $      9,000.00

Rental - depreciated cost basis as repaired

 $    16,000.00

Rental - depreciated cost basis as is

 $    12,000.00

 

5.22    The Council has adopted a policy in setting rents to sports groups that own their own buildings on parks or reserves.  For comparison purposes, if the Bunker was owned by a sports club, the current annual ground rental would be approximately $187.00 per annum plus GST based on the building footprint size.

5.23    There is currently no rental policy set for determining rents to sports groups and organisations occupying Council-owned buildings.  To set rentals for these types of occupations, a market valuation is undertaken and then discussed with the internal Council asset owner and based on the lessee’s ability to pay rent.

5.24    The Club has limited income earning capacity and relies on grants, fundraising, sponsorship and donations to meet their operational costs.  For the financial year ending 2016 the Club had a net surplus of $1061 and for the year ending 2017 the net surplus was $5388.  A copy of the financial statement is appended to this report in Attachment C.

5.25    These financial statements confirm that the Club is not in a position to pay a market rental for the building.

Building Maintenance, Renewals and Funding Source

5.26    The Community Facilities Specialist has provided the following information.

5.27    The building maintenance costs for the Bunker that have been attributed towards this facility for the last 3 financial years include:

1.1.1   1.1.1  

Financial Year

Total

 

2016

$2,253.06

2017

$2,123.36

2018

$1,891.46

5.28    There have been no renewal costs for this facility for the last 3 financial years.

5.29    Funding Sources include but are not limited to:

5.29.1 Council funding through an LTP or an annual plan process. This is likely to be contestable with numerous competing priorities.

5.29.2 Council funding through a funding scheme. This is likely to be contestable and the project may face difficulties meeting the requisite criteria.

5.29.3 Philanthropic funding. Philanthropic funding is increasingly difficult to attain, a community purpose helps, a robust business case and proven community need will also help.

5.29.4 Commercial funding. Possible if the funding entity has defined community outcomes that the Club has synergies with.

5.29.5 Sponsorship. Possible, if the potential sponsor considers the exposure to the Club has synergies that are complementary.

 

Community Board Delegations

5.30    The Council has granted Community Boards the delegated authority to grant leases on Recreation Reserves in accordance with section 54 of the Reserves Act 1977.

5.31    Section 54(1)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977 makes provision for the administering body to grant leases to any voluntary organisations for any stands, pavilions, gymnasiums, other buildings or structures already on the reserve subject to the provisions set out in Schedule 1 of that Act relating to leases of recreation reserves provided that a lease granted with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation given on the grounds that it is considered to be in the public interest for sports, games or public recreation not directly associated with outdoor recreation.

The bunker is an existing building and the sport of boxing and training fits within the intention of this section of the Reserves Act.

5.32    As there is no approved reserve management plan for Wainoni Park, the administering body (the Council) must give notice in accordance with section 119 and 120 of the Reserves Act 1977 of the intention to grant a lease with any objections and submissions to be heard by a hearings panel.  This delegation excludes the hearing and determining of submissions or objections; such panel would be convened by the Council.

5.33    Public advertising of the intention to grant a lease has been undertaken and there were no submissions in support nor objections to the lease proposal.

Minister of Conservation Delegation

5.34    On 12 June 2013, the Minster of Conservation delegated to all territorial authorities powers, functions and duties where the territorial authority is the administering body of the relevant reserve.  The Council has sub-delegated that power to the Chief Executive.

5.35    In exercising the Minister’s delegation, the administering body (i.e. the Council) must give consideration to those matters previously applied by the Minister, for example ensuring that:

·        The land has been correctly identified;

·        The necessary statutory processes have been followed;

·        The functions and purposes of the Reserves Act have been taken into account in respect to the classification and purpose of the reserve as required under section 40 of the Act;

·        The administering body has considered submissions and objections from affected parties and that, on the basis of the evidence, the decision is a reasonable one;

·        Pursuant to the requirements of section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, the administering body has consulted with and considered the views of tangata whenua or has in some other way been able to make an informed decision.

·        Council officers have publically notified the Council’s intentions to consider granting A-Town Boxing Gym Incorporated a lease for 33 years.

5.36    Council officers are satisfied that the proposed lease will comply with the Minister’s requirements.

Legal Considerations - Dealing Unilaterally

5.37    The Council must ensure that it complies with the relevant policies adopted.  In this instance the  policy for “Property – Leasing Council Property” is applicable:

5.37.1 "where the Council recognises there is only one logical lessee for a public property, the Council will unilaterally deal with that lessee.”  This includes facilities linked to contracts including but not limited to buildings on parks and reserves and not for profit organisations. (Adopted December 2015)

5.38    On this occasion it is open for the Council to grant a lease in accordance with the above policy as it has received a proposal for the stewardship of the Bunker:

·   Supports Council’s Strengthening Communities Strategy by:

·     Helping to build and sustain a sense of local community

·     Ensuring that the community has access to facilities that meets their needs.

·     Increasing participation in community recreation and sport programmes and events

·     Enhancing the safety of communities and neighbourhoods.

·     Improving basic life skills so that all residents can participate in society.

·   Supports Council’s Physical Recreation and Sport Strategy 2002 by:

·     Increasing participation in physical recreation and sports which in turn promotes better health and reduces health care costs and contributes to people’s quality of life.

·   Supports Council’s Safer Christchurch Strategy 2016 by:

·     Reducing and preventing the incidence and effects of crime through mentoring and training of the members of the boxing programme.

·     Providing a place where members are valued and respected.

·     Providing a place for members to feel safe and seek solace, giving them a sense of community.

5.39    Having given consideration to the above factors, staff are of the view that the proposal benefits the community and outweighs any benefits that may be realised from an open tender process. 

6.   Option 1 – Maintain Ownership of the Building and Grant Lease with the Club Completing Repairs

Option Description

6.1       A lease is granted to A-Town Boxing Gym on the basis that they undertake the repairs required for their utilisation of the building at a peppercorn rental ($1).

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 is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist in understanding the alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

6.4       A public notices outlining the intention to grant a lease has been published in The Press and no objections were received.

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       Members of the A-Town Boxing Gym are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have a permanent home in the Aranui community.  Their preference is to obtain a long-term lease would guarantee tenure and provide a home for the Club.

6.7       The intention to grant a lease in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – less than $1000 which includes public advertising and legal document preparation.

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no cost to Council, to be set out in lease agreement

6.11    Funding source – Community Facilities – Community Support Governance & Partnership budget

6.12    Rental - $1 per annum

Legal Implications

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

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

6.15    The legal consideration is the Reserves Act 1977 and the Council’s Leasing Council Property policy.  The preparation of the Deed of Lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

Risks and Mitigations  

6.16    There is a risk that the Club does not raise sufficient funds for the repairs.  This may result in the building remaining on the park in an unrepaired state.

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

6.16.2 Planned or current treatment(s) include providing staff resources to assist the Club in obtaining funding from private organisations, developing business plans and presentations to assist in secure funding.

6.16.3 A programme of repairs will be prepared by the Club once they obtain the remaining funding required. 

Implementation

6.17    Implementation dependencies  - funding availability and completion of repairs

6.18    Implementation timeframe – dependent on funding; lease implementation 4-8 weeks.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.19    The advantages of this option include:

·   The building is repaired at no cost to the Council. 

There is currently no funding in the Council’s operating budget to carry out repairs or demolition of the building.  Through the lease, A-town is undertaking to repair the building and make fit for their purposes.

·   The Club has a permanent home at Wainoni Park to continue to promote their programmes.

Finding a permanent home elsewhere in the Aranui community at no cost would provide similar advantages; however there are no known suitable buildings in the area. They have been in Aranui on Hampshire Street for 14 years and they consider it their home.  The building is on Wainoni (Hampshire) Park, close to where the youths live.  Young people learn better in familiar surroundings. Moving it somewhere farther away would be of no benefit as these youths have very limited resources.  It is somewhere they can walk/cycle to – it’s their neighbourhood.  Temporary use elsewhere would only provide uncertainty to them and would isolate those who couldn’t find their way to a location that may be farther from home.

·   Helps to build and sustain a sense of local community. 

The community is behind them; the local school and especially the neighbourhood Police are fully supportive as activities provided by Jamie (the coach) and his assistants provides role models for these kids – this is a decile 1 area where many of the participants are not living a traditional privileged life with happy, healthy and encouraging home lives.  Going to A-Town gives them a sense of belonging, a chance to become role models, a confidence boost and engagement with the community. Nurturing local talent in the local community.

·   Ensures that the community has access to facilities that meets their needs. 

The lease is the mechanism to get A-Town tenure so they can raise money to renovate the facilities.  Westpac has provided some funds to assist the Club. Council could continue to let them “hire” it on a long term basis (making a hall booking each year) but that won’t achieve objectives of making the facility fit for purpose nor provide evidence to funders that the group can stay long-term.

·   Increases participation in community recreation and sport programmes and events.

Improved facilities lead to increased participation and greater availability of resources and community connectedness.

·   Enhances the safety of communities and neighbourhoods.

The community police participate in these programmes and provide guidance to the participants and leaders.  They know who the vulnerable kids are and this programme provides an opportunity for the Police to channel the kids into an organised activity rather than potentially continuing on a destructive path.

·   Improves basic life skills so that all residents can participate in society.

As outlined above – they are learning respect for their community and gaining confidence and respect in themselves as well as other important values. This enhances the low socio-economic area as previously mentioned.

6.20    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Dealing unilaterally with the Trust may be seen as limiting the uses for the property and prevents any other interested parties from having an opportunity to enter into a lease with the Council or have the ability to purchase the building.

There has been minimal to no interest in using the building and no objections to the published notification in The Press to grant a lease.

·   The use of the land is limited to utilisation for recreational activities which reduces the types of groups that would meet the criteria for occupation.

This may be seen as a disadvantage because there is only one type of activity (recreation) that can be considered under the Reserves Act.  The local football club are not interested in the use of this facility. If it was classified as a local purpose community building, the catchment of interested groups may be larger. There are no plans to change the classification of the reserve.

7.   Option 2 – Council Undertake Repairs and Maintains Ownership of the Building and Grants Lease for Occupation

Option Description

7.1       The Council repairs the building and brings it up to an acceptable lettable standard and grants a lease of the building to A-Town Boxing Gym at a rental to be negotiated.

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 is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist in understanding the alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

7.4       A public notices outlining the intention to grant a lease has been published in The Press and no objections were received.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.5       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

7.6       Members of the A-Town Boxing Gym are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have a permanent home in the Aranui community.   The granting of a long-term lease would guarantee tenure and provide a home for the Club.  If the Council undertook the repairs it would free the Club from fundraising to undertake this work.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.8       Cost of Implementation – costs associated in preparation of a lease document (approximately $250); costs to Council to carry out required upgrades and deferred maintenance on building – approximately $200,000

7.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – annual maintenance costs, renewals and replacements – undetermined as there has been no budget set aside for this specific building and any costs would come from the general fund held for community facility buildings and be prioritised on a needs basis.  Refer to paragraph 5.26 for historical maintenance costs.

7.10    Funding source – Community Facilities – Community Support Governance & Partnership budget.

7.11    Rental – market rents are identified in paragraph 5.21; a rental would be negotiated with the tenant.

Legal Implications

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

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

7.14    The legal consideration is the Reserves Act 1977 and the Council’s Leasing Council Property policy.  The preparation of the Deed of Lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

Risks and Mitigations  

7.15    There is a risk that repairs will not be carried out until budgets are made available.

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

7.15.2 Planned treatment(s) include budget being reallocated to fund the repairs and ongoing maintenance.

Implementation

7.16    Implementation dependencies  - funding availability and completion of repairs

7.17    Implementation timeframe – dependant on above; leave implementation 4-8 weeks

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   Council maintains ownership of the asset and receives a nominal rental return through the lease.

7.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   No allocated budget in the Long Term Plan for the repairs.

·   No identified purpose for maintaining ownership of the building.

·   Future ongoing expenditure in maintaining ownership of the building.

 

8.   Option 3 – Transfer Ownership of Building and Grant Ground Lease

Option Description

8.1       Council transfers ownership of the building at a nominal sum ($1) on an “as is basis” and the Community Board approves a ground lease to A-Town Boxing Gym.

Significance

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

8.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance is to provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist in understanding the alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

8.4       Consultation – The public consultation process in accordance with Section 78 of the Local Government Act would be required.  This process requires full consultation with the community to seek their views and preferences on the disposal of the building asset.  This has not been undertaken as the Club’s preference is to have the Council maintain ownership of the building.

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.5       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

8.6       Members of the A-Town Boxing Gym are specifically affected by this option due to their desire to have a permanent home in the Aranui community.  In follow-up discussions with the Trust outlining the processes for transferring ownership, the Club determined that their preference was for Council to remain the building owner and granting a lease.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

8.8       Cost of Implementation – less than $1000 which includes public advertising and legal document preparation.

8.9       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – no cost to Council

8.10    Funding source – Community Facilities – Community Support Governance & Partnership budget

8.11    Rental – the annual rent would be based on the policy for setting rents to sport groups on parks and reserves; in this instance it would be approximately $215 per annum.

Legal Implications

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

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

8.14    The legal consideration is the Reserves Act 1977 and the Council’s Leasing Council Property policy and Disposal of Property process.  The preparation of the Sale and Purchase Agreement and Deed of Lease is a routine matter on which the legal situation is well known and settled.

Risks and Mitigations  

8.15    There is a risk that the Club does not obtain the funding to repair the building.  This may result in a building remaining on the park that is in poor condition and appearance.

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

8.15.2 Planned or current treatment(s) includes provisions in the lease that the building must be repaired within a specific time frame.

Implementation

8.16    Implementation dependencies  - public advertising and consultation,  preparation of agreements

8.17    Implementation timeframe – lease implementation 3-6 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.18    The advantages of this option include:

·   The building is repaired at no cost to the Council.

·   The Club has a permanent home at Wainoni Park to continue to promote their programmes.

·   Helps to build and sustain a sense of local community

·   Ensures that the community has access to facilities that meets their needs.

·   Increases participation in community recreation and sport programmes and events

·   Enhances the safety of communities and neighbourhoods.

·   Improves basic life skills so that all residents can participate in society.

8.19    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Dealing unilaterally with the Trust may be seen as limiting the uses for the property and prevents any other interested parties from having an opportunity to enter into a lease with the Council or have the ability to purchase the building.

·   The use of the land is limited to utilisation for recreational activities which reduces the types of groups that would meet the criteria for occupation.

·   Contravenes the Council’s policies on disposal of property and leasing of property.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Site Plan

42

b

Fire Assessment Report

43

c

A-Town Financial Statement

47

 

 

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

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

10.    Aranui and Shirley Vacuum Sewer Systems

Reference:

18/1282144

Presenter(s):

Michele McDonald, Senior Planning Engineer - Growth

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Coastal-Burwood Community Board to be informed on progress achieved in dealing with the ongoing wastewater capacity constraints in the Aranui- and Shirley vacuum sewer catchments.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is being provided to fulfil Coastal-Burwood Community Board resolution (24525) / item 12.4: Staff undertook to obtain answers for the Board on a variety of questions around the Aranui sewer system capacity.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by following and assessment of the criteria in the Significance and Engagement Policy, particularly the level of impact of those affected, level of community interest and the impact on the capacity of Council to carry out its roles and functions.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Take note of the responses to the specific questions raised and to be updated on the current status of the wastewater capacity constraints faced in the Aranui- and Shirley vacuum sewer catchments.

4.   Key Points

4.1       The Coastal-Burwood Community Board was briefed on 7 May 2018 on capacity constraints experienced in the Aranui- and Shirley vacuum sewer catchments.

4.2       Staff undertook to obtain answers for the Board on a variety of questions around the Aranui vacuum sewer system capacity and confirms that additional wastewater connections within the Aranui- and Shirley vacuum sewer catchment areas cannot be accepted at present.

 

 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Staff briefed the Coastal-Burwood Community Board on 7 May 2018 regarding the capacity challenges faced in the Aranui- and Shirley Vacuum Sewer Catchments.

5.2       Additional questions were raised by the Community Board on 5 November 2018.  Response to these questions are provided as follows:

·   How are people able to make a decision regarding having a different sewer if there is no timeframe provided as to when the vacuum system will be able to be connected to?

The installation of seven air admittance devices in the Aranui vacuum sewer system was completed at the end of 2018.  The system will now be re-tuned by the vacuum sewer system supplier in order to optimise the air to liquid ratio.  This will be finalized by March 2019.  Council staff will then monitor the flow rate into the vacuum station during wet weather and when ground water level is high to assess the effectiveness of the upgrade and to confirm if there is sufficient capacity in the system. It is expected that this assessment will be complete by June 2019.

 

The tender review for the installation of air admittance devices in the Shirley vacuum sewer system has been completed and the tender will be awarded shortly.

 

In the meantime, property owners are being advised at the earliest opportunity that no new connections to the Aranui- and Shirley vacuum sewer systems are being accepted until adequate capacity is confirmed.

 

·   Is the impact on the system really bad enough to prevent new builds?

A vacuum sewer system requires a vacuum to be maintained in the pipes in order for the vacuum suction to work.  If the vacuum sewer pipes become full of liquid, the vacuum station can no longer convey the sewage through the pipes.  This is the case in the Aranui vacuum sewer system when it rains.  Every 4 to 5 houses share one vacuum chamber that is equipped with a vacuum valve which opens when there is sufficient suction available in the vacuum pipes.  The vacuum chambers have been designed for a limited storage capacity.  If sewage is not sucked from the chamber because of insufficient vacuum in the pipes, the sewage will backup and overflow onto the street and private properties.  To prevent this from happening, Council sends sucker trucks during rain events to empty chambers where overflows are imminent or have happened.  Therefore ‘any’ additional discharge into a single vacuum chamber can have significant consequences when the vacuum cannot be maintained (i.e. during rain events) and will increase the risk of overflows onto the street and private properties as well as the frequency of emptying manually by sucker trucks. 

 

The rain event in July 2017 resulted in the system unable to function adequately for up to 10 days.  During 2018 alone, Council has invested $15,000 on resolving individual vacuum chamber overflows resulting from relatively minor rain events.

 

·   Why have some new properties been able to connect to the system (e.g. 276 Breezes Road)?

It has been accepted that dwellings may be re-established on a single property and where previous dwellings are demolished under the strict condition that a) all private sewers to be replaced and b) the sewer lateral up to the vacuum chamber to be inspected and if found damaged to be replaced at the property owners cost. 

 

2/276 Breezes Road is a development where a previous residential house is demolished to be completely replaced by two minor dwelling units (2 bedrooms each) and therefore not considered to result in an increased wastewater discharge into the vacuum chamber servicing that property.  Similarly, development has been approved in Basingstoke Street where agreement has been reached with Housing New Zealand that existing dwellings would be demolished. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·   What are the plans, if there was to be an increase in demand to build in the area. Is the system able to be adapted to handle this?

The system was designed by Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure rebuild Team (SCIRT) based on the development allowed in the previous Christchurch City Plan, which had a minimum lot size of 450 m². The Land Use Recovery Plan and the subsequent Christchurch District Plan allows for more intensification than the Christchurch City Plan.  At Council’s request, SCIRT increased the size of some vacuum sewer pipes to accommodate mostly Housing New Zealand developments in the Aranui vacuum sewer area that were underway at the time.

 

Design provision was made for 195 additional dwellings to be serviced in Aranui, distributed as follows:

Vacuum Arm 1               9         

Vacuum Arm 2               18       

Vacuum Arm 3               13

Vacuum Arm 4               19

Vacuum Arm 5               16

Vacuum Arm 6               120

 

The above capacity will however only be available once the existing wet weather flow is reduced to within the designed capacity. 

 

The design flows used by SCIRT were in accordance with the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standard, which assumes that inflow and infiltration is 2.78 times the peak daily flow.  The reason for the capacity issues during wet weather is because the inflow and infiltration exceeds the above allowance.  This can be mitigated by allowing extra air into the system to improve the air to liquid ratio in wet weather and/or by reducing the amount of inflow and infiltration into the system to avoid waterlogging of the vacuum pipes.

 

244 Breezes Road is situated in Vacuum Arm 3.

 

·   Where are you at with the work that is being done to address the broken laterals?  I.e. what is the timeline?

This issue relates to private sewers within property boundaries.  As part of the SCIRT project to implement the vacuum sewer system, the sewer laterals within legal road were replaced and new laterals were established to convey wastewater from each property boundary into a vacuum chamber.  Additionally, CCTV inspections were undertaken to identify damage to private sewers i.e. the sewers within property boundaries.  Where it was confirmed that there was damage to private sewers, property owners were advised to claim from Earthquake Commission(EQC) and to repair their sewer pipes.  Council has also distributed pamphlets to remind and educate residents of the importance of fixing their broken sewer pipes.  In addition, the following information was placed on the property Land Information Memorandum in order to ensure that property owners and future buyers are aware of the requirement to fix private sewers. This notice is only removed when confirmation is received that repairs were done.

Council does not have a capital programme or project to repair broken private sewers.  Property owners can still lodge a claim with EQC.  Those that have received an EQC payout should be encouraged to repair their sewers.  For all replacement dwellings, property owners are advised at building consent stage that they may not re-use any of the existing private sewer pipes.  For changes to existing dwellings, property owners are requested to inspect and repair broken sewer pipes. 

 

Where residents are unable or unwilling to repair damaged sewers, Council could enforce compliance with section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974 and its bylaws (see below), but in order to do that, adequate evidence of non-compliance would be required. However, the current operational budget for wastewater is insufficient to provide the necessary resources to follow up with property owners with leaky laterals.

 

Data from the new monitoring system will be very useful to enable the identification of the problem areas.  Council intends to use the monitoring data to target streets with the worst capacity problems first and to identify the vacuum chambers where increased flow rates are experienced during wet weather. 

 

·   How wide across the city are the problems with the sewer capacity/ broken laterals? 

An allowance is made for inflow and infiltration when designing a sewer system and problems are generally encountered when this allowance is exceeded.  There are some catchments where inflow and infiltration exceeds the expected volume and where capacity constraints are experienced as a result.  There are several programmes, either as capital projects or part of operational processes to identify areas with high inflow and infiltration and to find solutions to reduce the negative impact on the available capacity or to remove capacity constraints.

 

The Council has not undertaken a survey of all laterals in Christchurch, so do not know how many laterals are problematic.

 

A wastewater flow monitoring programme has recently been completed over a three month period, and the data will be used to identify the areas with the highest inflow and infiltration.

 

The Shirley vacuum sewer system suffers from capacity problems similar to those in the Aranui vacuum sewer system.

 

There are also areas of gravity sewer where we have capacity problems during wet weather.  These are shown in the map below.

Wastewater capacity constraint areas in gravity sewer catchments

 

 

 

 

 

 

·   What is the legality of having a broken lateral? Are you allowed to? Can the Council require people to fix them? Is Council able to loan people money to pay for the repair of their laterals?

Section 459 Local Government Act 1974 provides that the Council may, by notice in writing, require the owner of land or a building within the Council’s district to, among other things:

(1)        In respect of any land or building within the district, the council may, subject to sections 283 and 294(9) of this Act [these sections are now repealed so are not relevant here] and to subsection (7) of this section, by notice in writing, require the owner thereof to do all or any of the following things:

(a)        To provide, construct, and lay a private drain from any land or building which is not drained by some drain to the satisfaction of the council, and to connect that private drain with any public drain or watercourse or the sea, as the council thinks fit:

(b)        To cleanse and repair or to relay or alter the course, direction, and outfall of any existing private drain of or belonging to the premises:

(c)        To connect any such existing private drain with any public drain or watercourse other than the public drain or watercourse with which the private drain was previously connected:

(d)        To provide and affix in and to any such existing private drain, and in and to any such new private drain, all such traps, methods of ventilation, and other fittings whatever as the council directs:

(e)        To connect or disconnect any existing or new private drain with or from any water closet, urinal, bath, sink, grease trap, or other sanitary appliance:

(f)         To execute, provide, and do generally any works, materials, and things which in the opinion of the council are necessary or expedient for the efficient drainage of the premises and every part thereof.

(4)        Every notice under this section shall specify the works, materials, and things to be executed, provided, or done thereunder, and the public drain or watercourse with which any private drain is required to be connected, and shall limit a time within which the works, materials, and things shall be so executed, provided, and done.

(5)        The foregoing powers shall, among other things, enable the council to require any owner of premises to cause any pollutant and any water that does not contain any pollutant to be drained respectively by sewerage drains and stormwater drains to separate outfalls/ Provided that the council shall not in any such notice require any pollutant to be drained into any open drain.

(6)        If the owner fails to do any work specified in the notice and as therein directed, the council may, if it thinks fit, cause the work to be done, and may recover from him the costs and expenses of the work together with 10 percent of those costs and expenses for supervision by the officers or agents of the council, and interest at a rate per annum, as fixed by the council …, on the total sum until payment thereof. Where any work done by the council pursuant to this subsection is on account of several owners, the council may apportion the total amount as aforesaid between those owners, and the amount so apportioned to each such owner shall be the amount recoverable from him.

(7)        No owner shall be required—

(a)        To construct any private drain, other than a common drain, to connect with any public drain or the sea at a point more than 30 metres from his land; or

(b)        To construct any private drain for the drainage of a building if the nearest part of the building is situated more than 60 metres from the public drain, or watercourse, or sea to which it is required to be connected.

 

Section 459 states “the Council” may by notice in writing require the owner to do the various things.  In the Council’s delegations register various powers relating to s459 have been delegated:

·      Council Hearings Panels: To hear and determine any objections concerning private drains notices or orders under ss.459 or 460 of the Local Government Act 1974.

·      Council also delegated “to the City Water and Waste Manager and to the Building Control Manager (severally) its powers under section 459 of the Local Government Act 1974.”

·      And to the Inspections and Enforcement Manager: “The powers of the Council contained in sections 459 and 460 of the Local Government Act 1974 including the power to sign section 459 notices on behalf of the Council (relating to private drains and drainage works)”.

Approval to send a notice in writing under s459 in any instance needs to be done by one of these 3 people – or someone they have sub-delegated this power to. 

 

In addition, where it is deemed that excessive inflow is due to illegal connections including rain water connections, the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw 2014, provides in Clause 27, that:

 (1) Unless authorised by the Council no person may:

(a) Cause or allow any water from a water pipe, artesian well, ram or other hydraulic appliance or any surface water, subsoil drainage, roof water or condensing water to enter a wastewater drain or a drain connected with a wastewater drain.

There are also powers in the Building Act 2004 (as modified by the Canterbury Earthquake (Building Act) Order 2010) and the Health Act 1956 that could provide authority for the Council to carry out the works on sewer laterals.  However, under the Building Act it is necessary to decide that the work is required because the building is insanitary.  Similarly, under the Health Act the broken lateral would need to be in such a state as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health. 

 

Council has several loan and grant schemes that could potentially be considered to support needy residents, where it is not possible to claim for repairs from EQC. 

 

·   In the area, there are approximately 4,000 houses, 900 chambers, and 7 people that have asked to build – would those 7 people really have an impact?

Unfortunately this is the case as explained in question 2 above.  The failure of one vacuum valve, servicing 4 to 5 houses, can impact the available vacuum in the main pipe and if left un-resolved can result in an entire vacuum arm to fail i.e. vacuum cannot be maintained in the main pipe.  Also, if the system is unable to create sufficient vacuum, any additional discharge will reduce the storage time in the pipes and in the chamber and will increase the frequency by which the vacuum chamber must be emptied by sucker truck in order to avoid spillage onto streets and private properties.

 

The vacuum sewer system services 2,797 residential properties and 57 business properties. Some of these residential properties have not yet been built on.  The Aranui vacuum sewer system comprises 6 vacuum arms (main pipelines), meaning that the catchment is divided into 6 catchments.  The arms in each catchment have a certain flow capacity.  In addition, each vacuum chamber can service a maximum of 6 residential dwellings.

 

There is currently a hold on building consents to establish an additional 11 residential dwellings in the Aranui sewer catchment.  In addition to this, agreement has been reached with Housing New Zealand to delay the proposed development of 9 additional dwellings within the vacuum system, until wastewater capacity is available. 

 

There are two cases where property owners have elected to follow the provisions of Clause G13-Foul Water of the Building Regulations 1992, which provides as follows:

G13.3.4           If no sewer is available, facilities for the storage, treatment and disposal of foul water must be constructed-

(a)   with adequate capacity for the volume of foul water and the frequency of disposal; and

(b)   with adequate vehicle access for collection if required; and

(c)    to avoid the likelihood of contamination of any potable water supplies in compliance with Clause G12 “Water supplies”; and

(d)   to avoid the likelihood of contamination of soils, groundwater, and waterways except as permitted under the Resource Management Act 1991; and

(e)   from materials that are impervious both to the foul water for which disposal is required, and to water; and

(f)    to avoid the likelihood of blockage and leakage; and

(g)   to avoid the likelihood of foul air and gases accumulating within or entering into buildings; and

(h)   to avoid the likelihood of unauthorised access by people; and

(i)    to permit easy cleaning and maintenance; and

(j)    to avoid the likelihood of damage from superimposed loads or normal ground movement; and

(k)   if those facilities are buried underground, to resist hydrostatic uplift pressures.

Due to several challenges related to the establishment of holding tanks that must be emptied by sucker trucks and the potential long-term negative impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood, Council does not wish to promote the above as a servicing option.

 

·   Could you please provide an update of the progress of the projects that are being implemented to improve the situation?

Automatic Air Admittance Systems: All automatic air admittance devices have been installed in the Aranui vacuum sewer system. The suppliers of the vacuum sewer system will retune the vacuum sewer system to optimise the air to liquid ratio. The ability to service new connections will be confirmed once the effectiveness of this upgrade has been assessed. 

 

The tender to install the automatic air admittance devices in Shirley will soon be awarded.

 

Vacuum System Monitoring Equipment:  Devices to monitor the valves in the collection chambers have been installed for 50 collection chambers, and a three month trial period started on 25 October 2018.  The information from the trial will be used to improve the roll out of the remainder of the monitoring devices. These will be installed by the end of 2019. The data from the monitoring devices will be used to identify areas with highest inflow and infiltration.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Email correspondence

57

b

Aranui & Shirley Vacuum Sewer Catchment - Presentation to Coastal Burwood Community Board - 7 May 2018

58

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Bridget O'Brien - Team Leader Asset Planning

Michele McDonald - Senior Planning Engineer - Growth

Approved By

John Moore - Manager Planning and Delivery

John Mackie - Head of Three Waters and Waste

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

11.    Coastal-Burwood 2018/19 Youth Development Fund Report - Logan Roberts

Reference:

19/46091

Presenter(s):

Katie MacDonald – Community Support Officer

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board to consider an application received for funding from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund.

1.2       There is currently a balance of $950.00 remaining in this fund.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report is to assist the Board to consider an application of funding from Logan Roberts.

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 number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board resolve to:

1.         Approve a grant of $250 from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund to Logan Roberts towards the costs of his flights for representing Canterbury in the Under 18 Mixed Touch Team at the 2019 New Zealand Touch National Tournament in Rotorua, 8 to 10 February 2019. The granted funds are not to be used for any supervisory staff, coaching, tuition or management costs.

 

4.   Applicant 1 – Logan Roberts

4.1       Logan is a 17 year old student currently in year 13.

4.2       Logan has been selected in the Touch Canterbury Under 18 Mixed team to compete at the 2019 Touch Junior National Tournament in Rotorua from 8 to 10 February 2019.

4.3       There are a total of 16 players that have been selected for the Touch Canterbury Under 18 Mixed Team for the 2018 season. Selection occurred through an invitation trial process.

4.4       Logan is also a Canterbury Rugby representative and competed as part of the Under 16 Metro team which won the South Island tournament in October 2018.

4.5       Logan has represented Canterbury touch teams for a total of eight years and gives back to the sport of Touch by volunteering as a referee when he is not playing.

4.6       The application was received from Logan within the six week timeframe as set out in the criteria for the Coastal-Burwood Youth Development Fund. Due to the recess of the Community Board over the holiday period and delay in information coming from Touch Canterbury the application was not able to be assessed and presented to a Board meeting prior to the event.

4.7       Logan received sponsorship from a residential building company that was paid directly to Touch    Canterbury towards the overall costs of representing in the 2018/19 season.

4.8       The following table provides a breakdown of the costs for Logan to represent the Under 18 Mixed Canterbury Touch Team for the 2018/19 season. Touch Canterbury were not able to provide a breakdown of the specific costs relating to the Touch Junior National Tournament in Rotorua as they combine costs for the entire season.

EXPENSES

Cost ($)

Accommodation/ Food/Snacks

$285

Flights

$430

Vans and Petrol

$100

Physio/ Tent Hire

$75

National Entry Fee

$105

Playing Uniform/T-Shirt/ TC Socks

$135

Admin Fee/Advertising

$80

Prizegiving/Photograph

$35

                                                                                                 Total

$1245

Fundraising



Building Company Sponsorship

$250

Part-time work and savings (amount unknown)

$0

                                                                                                 Total

$250

 

 

REMAINING

$995

 

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

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie MacDonald - Support Officer

Natalie Dally - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

   


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

18 February 2019

 

 

12.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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