Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 6 March 2019

Time:                                   9.30am

Venue:                                 Council Chambers, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

1 March 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brent Smith

Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8645

 

David Corlett

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 5421

david.corlett@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee - Terms of Reference

 

Chair

Councillor Clearwater

Membership

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

Quorum

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

Meeting Cycle

Monthly

Reports To

Council

 

Responsibilities

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

 

The Committee:

·      Promotes active citizenship, community participation and community partnerships

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

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

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

 

The Social, Community Development and Housing Committte considers and reports to Council on operational matters and, if specifically authorised by the Council, capital projects relating to:

·      Arts  and culture including the Art Gallery

·      Heritage protection, including heritage grant funding 

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

·      Libraries (including community volunteer libraries)

·      Museums

·      Sports, recreation and leisure services and facilities

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

·      Hagley Park, including the Hagley Park Reference Group

·      Community facilities and assets

·      Public Health and health in all policies

·      Community safety and crime prevention, including family violence

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

·      Community events, programmes and activities

·      Community development and support, including grants and sponsorships

·      Citizen services

·      Community engagement and participation

·      Communities of place, identity and interest.

 

Delegations

 

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

§  Approve Heritage Incentive Grant applications.

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

§  Approve applications to the Events and Festivals Fund.

§  Give Council’s consent under the terms of a Heritage Conservation Covenant

§  Give Council’s consent to the removal of a Heritage Conservation Covenant from a vacant section.

 

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

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

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

·      Multicultural Subcommittee for matters relating to the Multicultural Strategy

·      Disability Issues Working Group

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multicultural Subcommittee

C          7.        Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 1 February 2019.................................. 13

Staff Reports

C          8.        Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation............ 19

C          9.        Approval of a Heritage Incentive Grant for Kilwinning Lodge, 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton................................................................................................ 29

C          10.      Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch............... 41

C          11.      Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 158 High Street, Christchurch................ 55

C          12.      Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 226 Kilmore Street............................... 67

C          13.      Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton............... 77

C          14.      Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 30 Hackthorne Road............................. 89

A          15.      Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa..................................... 101

C          16.      Community Facilities Network Plan........................................................... 121

C          17.      Resolution to Exclude the Public.............................................................. 125  

 

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 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 Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 30 January 2019  be confirmed (refer page 7).

4.   Public Forum

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

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

6.   Petitions

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


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

 

Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                     Wednesday 30 January 2019

Time:                                    9.30am

Venue:                                 Committee Room 1, Level 2, Civic Offices,
53 Hereford Street, Christchurch

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Tim Scandrett

 

 

25 January 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Brent Smith

Principal Advisor Citizens & Community

Tel: 941 8645

 

David Corlett

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 5421

david.corlett@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A        Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B         Reports for Information

Part C         Decisions Under Delegation

·                                        

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00001

Committee Decision

That the apology from Councillor Johanson for lateness be accepted.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Scandrett                                                                                                                 Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00002

Committee Decision

That the minutes of the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee meeting held on Wednesday, 5 December 2018 be confirmed.

AND

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receive the Minutes from the Housing Subcommittee meeting held 17 December 2018.

AND

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receive the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 3 December 2018.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Livingstone                                                                                                              Carried

 

4.   Public Forum

4          Public Forum

Part B

The Chair of Historic Places  Canterbury, Mark Gerrard, presented to the Committee on the process for demolitions and significant alterations to Council owned (unscheduled) buildings.

Staff were called to the table to answer questions of clarification from the Committee re Dr Gerrards presentation.

 

The Committee asked staff to provide further information to the Committee on Yaldhurst Memorial Hall by way of a memorandum.

 

 

Part B

 

 

 

Councillor Johanson joined the meeting at 9.47am, during the discussion on the Public Forum presentation.

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

7.   Housing Subcommittee Minutes - 17 December 2018

 

Committee Decision

Refer to Item 3.

 

8.   Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 3 December 2018

 

Committee Decision

 

Refer to Item 3.

 

 

9.   Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 143-157 High Street, Christchurch

 

Committee Comment

1.         Original Staff recommendation accepted without change

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00003

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve an extension of time of one year for the uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for part of the Duncan’s building, 143-157 High Street. The new completion date for the project would be 13th February 2020.

Councillor Davidson/Councillor Chen                                                                                                                  Carried

 

 

10. Approval of an extension of time for a Heritage Incentive Grant for 88 Chester Street East, Christchurch

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a further extension of time of six months for the uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for the building at 88 Chester Street East. The new completion date for the project would be 08 July 2019. 

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00004

Part B

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a further extension of time of six months for the uptake of the Heritage Incentive Grant previously approved for the building at 88 Chester Street East. The new completion date for the project would be 08th July 2019.

The Committee notes that there are legitimate reasons for the recent delay in the completion of the work but also that this is the third application for an extension of time.

Councillor Chen/Councillor Keown                                                                                                                      Carried

 

 

11. Avon River Precinct  Art Status

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Avon River Precinct Art Status Report.

 

Committee Resolved SOC/2019/00005

Part C

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receive the information in the Avon River Precinct Art Status Report.

Note: that the Committee request a memorandum from staff on how much funding Ōtākaro Ltd  has available for funding of public art works. Are there any plans for ‘The Spires’? If not what happened to the funding?

Note: that the Committee request a presentation, to the Committee from the Public Arts Advisory Group.

Councillor Galloway/Councillor Keown                                                                                                              Carried

 

 

Meeting concluded at 10.37am.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2019

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Chairperson

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

7.        Multicultural Subcommittee Minutes - 1 February 2019

Reference:

19/117319

Presenter(s):

Councillor Chen, Chair

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Multicultural Subcommittee held a meeting on 1 February 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee receives the Minutes from the Multicultural Subcommittee meeting held 1 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Multicultural Subcommittee - 1 February 2019

14

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

8.        Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in Response to Likely Predation

Reference:

19/9142

Presenter(s):

Dr Antony Shadbolt (Team Leader - Parks Biodiversity)
Vicky Steele (Project Wingz)

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to endorse staff recommendations to implement protection measures at selected monarch butterfly overwintering trees in Christchurch Parks to remove/reduce suspected predation by rats.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report has been co-written by Council Staff and Vicky Steele (Project Wingz) to fulfil the request at the 8 August 2018 Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to provide further information to the Committee.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by the project being low cost and affecting a limited group of residents

 

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Endorse the following protection measures:

a.         That monarch butterfly overwintering trees at Abberly Park and Burnside Park be banded within seven days of butterflies beginning their overwintering behaviour.

b.         That staff monitor butterfly mortality at Abberley Park and Burnside Park and other sites to determine the effectiveness of tree banding.

 

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.2 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Gardens - condition average or better: 70%

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Fit overwintering trees with pest proof tree bands (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Carry out Rat trapping and/or poisoning

·     Option 3 – A combination of  Options 1 and 2

·     Option 4 – Do nothing

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Will assist Council staff and the community in determining the cause of significant mortality in monarch butterfly over-wintering sites.

·     Is likely to prevent significant mortality at target sites

·     Is a relatively cost effective and proven intervention compared with ongoing predator control in the urban environment

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Will not provide protection at all monarch overwintering sites

·     Minor adverse visual effect of tree bands

 

 

 

5.   Context/Background

Monarch Butterfly Predation in Urban Parks

5.1       Monarch Butterflies are described as an ‘assisted native’ by some entomologists and they are thought to have arrived in New Zealand via a natural colonisation event. However there are no New Zealand native plant species that support their larval (caterpillar) stage and therefore, they require swan plants (add genus name), their natural host, to be cultivated and planted by humans in gardens to fill this gap in their lifecycle requirements. Hence their survival in New Zealand is dependent on people. They have not been assigned a ‘Threat Classification’ under the New Zealand Threat Classification system.

5.2       During two overwintering seasons (2016 and 2018) Christchurch City Council (Council) staff were alerted by members of the public to high monarch butterfly mortality in some urban parks (Refer Table 1). It has been suggested by members of the community that the dead butterflies have been victims of predation, and through investigation it seems that the likely cause of this predation has been black rats (Rattus rattus) which have been observed in the overwintering trees at Abberley Park. Unlike Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), black rats are good climbers.  


 

5.3       Colonies monitored consistently (weekly and after severe weather) since 1997 include:

·   Woodham Park

·   Abberley Park

·   Ruru Lawn Cemetery/Linwood Cemetery

·   Redwood Park

·   St James Park

·   Bishopdale Park

·   Burnside Park

5.4       Predation was first discovered in Abberley Park and Ruru Lawn Cemetery in May 2016. The was no predation recorded in 2017, but in 2018 it occurred again at Abberley Park and also Burnside Park and Ernle Clark Reserve.

5.5       Table 1 shows monitoring data from 2012 until present, from Abberley and Burnside Parks. Numbers are approximate, recorded by eye, and taken after 4pm while the butterflies roost. Note: deaths are recorded by the recovery of dead butterflies and/or wings (set of 4 made up of 2 forewings and 2 hindwings of matching sex). Not all reduction in numbers is related to mortality - female butterflies leave parks after mating usually around mid-July/early August (weather dependent)

1.                   Table 1: Monarch butterfly monitoring data from 2012 until present, from Abberley and Burnside Parks[1].


 

5.6       Due to accumulated toxins (cardenolides) in monarch butterflies, they have no known major mammalian predators of any significance except for the black eared mouse which is native to South America and has evolved an ability to prey upon the monarch. This species does not occur in New Zealand. Elsewhere rats have also been observed feeding on monarchs in overwintering trees, so while it may be unusual that black rats are predating monarch butterflies in Christchurch’s urban parks, it is certainly not out of the question.

5.7       In 2016 and 2018 the Styx Living Laboratory Trust lent the Council Parks Unit staff a motion sensing wildlife surveillance cameras which were set up in the overwintering trees in Abberley Park. No rats were detected in the 2016 session, however it is possible that this may have been due to a) poor camera set-up and/or b) the cameras only being deployed for a short session. However, rats were frequently detected on the cameras within the overwintering tree during the 2018 monitoring session.

5.8       Monarch butterflies are not considered a threatened or at-risk species in New Zealand, and therefore Monarch butterflies are not considered a high priority species for management by the Christchurch City Council from a biodiversity perspective. However, they are regarded as charismatic species in their own right and usually thrive in Christchurch, even throughout the winter. Many residents of Christchurch buy or grow swan plants during spring, summer and autumn to attract monarchs to their gardens. Their overwintering sites are an aesthetic novelty in our urban parks, and their presence here and across the city unquestionably supports our Garden City image and identity.

5.9       New Zealand has a higher rate of unique butterfly and moth species than anywhere else, and particularly so in Canterbury. However you rarely see many other species in our city, making the Monarch a welcome sight. As pollinators, they are also a beneficial species and one of the few butterflies seen during the colder months with most other Canterbury butterflies overwintering as a larva or pupa.

5.10    Furthermore Monarch butterflies are one of the first wildlife species that young children come to recognise and are captivated by. Exposure to, and appreciation of urban nature at any age, whether it be indigenous, exotic (or in this case an assisted native species) is likely to lead to an increased sense of care and kaitiaki of the natural environment, including our parks and open spaces.

5.11    Brian Patrick, a well-known Canterbury entomologist and butterfly/moth expert also believes the monarch is an iconic feature of Christchurch parks and gardens and would like to see measures put in place to protect them. He has discussed such solutions as fitting the overwintering trees with metal predator/pest exclusion bands and planting winter flowering plants in the vicinity of the overwintering trees.

5.12    Although there is no conclusive (scientific) evidence that it is indeed black rats predating on the monarch butterflies at their overwintering sites, the degree of anecdotal evidence and expert opinion suggests that this is the likely scenario and is a theory that could be further investigated.

5.13    Therefore it is recommended that a degree of predator control, monitoring, and assessment of its success is undertaken prior to and during the 2019 and 2020[2] overwintering seasons. Note that opportunities to incorporate winter flowering plant species be incorporated into planting renewals to help improve the butterflies fitness and robustness at this time of the year.


 

5.14    Options for reducing the level and impacts of predation in urban parks therefore include:

·   Do nothing approach

·   Rat trapping and/or poisoning

·   Banding of selected overwintering trees (preferred option), and

·   A combination of tree banding and trapping/poisoning

·   Incorporation of winter flowering plants into planted areas (refer below)

5.15    Do Nothing: This option is likely to have no beneficial effect on monarch butterfly populations at the overwintering sites and may result on ongoing predation and increased adverse publicity.

5.16    Trapping and/or Poisoning: Trapping and poisoning on its own is not likely to be an effective solution due to the continual reinvasion of predators from adjacent areas. Given the low priority from a biodiversity perspective and not being part of a wider pest control initiative within the Christchurch urban area it is unlikely that this approach would be supported by (e.g.) Predator Free 2050.

5.17    Tree Banding: Attaching steel bands that prevent rats and other predators from accessing overwintering sites is a cost effective solution depending on the complexities of the overwintering trees (IE are there multiple, interlacing tree canopies necessitating the banding of multiple trees?). An estimated cost of each tree band is in the vicinity of $180 each – again dependant on the complexities of each tree.

5.18    Winter Flowering Plants: The Council Parks unit has a programme of Urban Park and Garden Heritage Park plant border renewals. Plant borders may be able to be retrofitted/supplemented with winter flowering plant species at no additional cost to status quo plant species election.


 

6.   Option 1 – Selected Tree Banding (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       Supply and install rat and predator-proof steel tree bands to monarch butterfly overwintering trees.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are none.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

6.6       Cost of Implementation - $1500

6.7       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Likely Nil

6.8       Funding source – Urban Parks

 

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

6.11    There is a risk that the general public may have a negative view of Council spending public money on monarch butterfly protection. This may result in media negative attention

6.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

6.11.2 Planned treatment(s) include tolerating this risk and also take advantage of such a situation to educate the wider public, highlight this novel phenomenon in the City’s Parks, and highlight biodiversity threats caused by exotic predators.

Implementation

6.12    Implementation dependencies  - Presence of overwintering butterflies

6.13    Implementation timeframe – Late Spring 2019 (determined by time butterfly overwintering)

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Will assist Council staff and the community in determining the cause of significant mortality in monarch butterfly over-wintering sites.

·   Is likely to prevent significant mortality at target sites

·   Is a relatively cost effective intervention compared with ongoing predator control

6.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Minor adverse visual effect of tree bands

7.   Option 2 – Trapping and/or Poisoning

Option Description

7.1       Set traps and/or lay poison in vicinity of overwintering trees

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.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications Cost of Implementation - <enter text>

7.5       Cost of Implementation - $1100

7.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - $900

7.7       Funding source – Urban Parks

 

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

7.10    There is a risk that the general public may have a negative view of Council spending public money on monarch butterfly protection. This may result in media negative attention

7.10.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

7.10.2 Planned treatment(s) include tolerating this risk and also take advantage of such a situation to educate the wider public, highlight this novel phenomenon in the City’s Parks, and highlight biodiversity threats caused by exotic predators.

 

Implementation

7.11    Implementation dependencies  - Presence of overwintering butterflies

7.12    Implementation timeframe – Late Spring 2019 (determined by time butterfly overwintering)

 

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   Does not entail attaching tree bands to trees and therefore avoids adverse aesthetics

7.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Will entail continual trapping and poisoning as rats and/or other predators will continually recolonise the control area from (e.g.) adjacent properties.

·   Rats and/or other predators may avoid traps and will therefore still pose a threat to the overwintering populations

·   Diverts animal pest control resources away from high(er) priority/threatened indigenous species

8.   Option 3 – Do Nothing

Option Description

8.1       No control action is taken and butterfly colonies will be exposed to possible decimation by rats

Significance

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

 

Impact on Mana Whenua

8.3       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.

 

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

 

Financial Implications

8.5       Cost of Implementation - Nil

8.6       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - Nil

8.7       Funding source – N/A

Legal Implications

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

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

 

Risks and Mitigations

8.10    There is a risk that interested members of the public will have a negative view of Council not investing in protecting this unique feature of the public open space. This may in-turn result in negative media attention

8.10.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is Low

8.10.2 Planned treatment includes tolerating this risk.

 

 

Implementation

8.11    Implementation dependencies  - N/A

8.12    Implementation timeframe – N/A

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.13    The advantages of this option include:

·   No cost to Council

8.14    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Does not protect overwintering monarch butterfly colonies

·   Council and the community will still not know whether tree banding successfully protects butterfly colonies

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Antony Shadbolt - Team Leader Biodiversity

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

9.        Approval of a Heritage Incentive Grant for Kilwinning Lodge, 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

18/1014794

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council a Heritage Incentive Grant for the heritage building at 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton also known as ‘Kilwinning Lodge’.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to an application from the owners of the building who wish to repair, strengthen, renovate and partially reconstruct this building so that it can function again, both as their own office and with leased commercial space.

2.   Significance

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of $258,782 for ‘Kilwinning Lodge’, 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton, subject to the following requirements:

a.         That the applicant enters into a full conservation covenant with the Council to cover the heritage building and heritage setting;

b.         The grant is split with $158,782 of the grant awarded from the 2018/19 financial year and $100,000 from 2019/2020, and the second part not paid out before the start of that financial year.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $258,782, (twenty-one percent, preferred option);

·     Option 2 - A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $180,000 (fifteen percent).

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It supports the retention of a ‘Significant’ heritage building;

·     It promotes the repair and reconstruction of a building which is a landmark building in Lyttelton, is adjacent the town centre and contributes to the unique identity of the town centre;

·     It promotes the retention of a building which has dual significance to the district, both as a former Masonic Lodge and as the former studio and residence of one of New Zealand’s foremost contemporary artists, Bill Hammond;

·     The work includes reconstruction of previous exterior features of the building that have been lost over the years;

·     Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building in Lyttelton, where so much heritage was lost following the Canterbury earthquakes;

·     With the grant acting as an incentive, the project to restore the building will generate a significant amount of private investment.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This would be a large grant to a single building.

 

5.   Context/Background

Former Kilwinning Lodge Brief History

5.1       The former Masonic Lodge is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as ‘Significant’, and is part of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Lyttelton Historic Area. Further information is provided in the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was originally built in 1881 as a single storey, slate-roofed, brick Masonic Lodge. However, a fire in 1903 resulted in much of the building being lost leaving only the external shell. Unusually, rather than demolish what was left and start again, the existing building was constructed reusing the existing brick walls and façade, and a full second storey was added above. The resultant building is therefore a rare composite structure in a classical style, with solid masonry walls at the lower level and a lightweight timber framed upper storey. Classical architecture is particularly associated with the Masonic movement and the façade at 26 Canterbury Street reflects this with classical detailing. Both the original and the modified lodges were designed by local lodge member ‘Bro.’ J Barnes, and decorated by William Radcliffe, a painter based in London Street, Lyttelton.

5.3       The premises were sold to prominent New Zealand artist Bill Hammond in 2000, especially noted for his paintings of ‘bird-people’, depictions initially inspired by a visit to the Auckland Islands in 1991. ‘Bird-people’ and ‘horse-people’ have continued to feature in his work ever since.

5.4       Bill Hammond had the hall adapted for use as an artist’s studio, commissioning Christchurch architect Stewart Ross for the design. This included the installation of three large windows on the south elevation, to light the studio, and internally a new staircase and mezzanine floor. Bill Hammond was the owner of the building when the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes occurred and was fully committed to repairing the building following those events. However, the lodge was finally sold to the director of a structural engineering company in 2015.

5.5       The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 resulted in the loss of many of the larger and older buildings within Lyttelton Town Centre including the Albion Building across the road from the Lodge. This site is now Albion Square and the Lodge is now a very prominent and distinct backdrop for the Square. Following the loss of so many buildings in the Canterbury earthquakes the building is a landmark for Lyttelton and the Port.

Photograph, Former Kilwinning Lodge, December 2014 and in context, 2018

5.6       The applicant for the grant is the owner who purchased the building in 2015, ‘Kilwinning Limited’. They are undertaking the structural engineering work themselves under the umbrella of their company Structex Studio 2, and are employing Fulton Ross Team Architects; Stewart Ross, a partner in this company, undertook the earlier design for Bill Hammond. The proposal includes the strengthening and re-development of the building to incorporate a new studio for the engineering company on the first floor, while making the ground floor available for lease as commercial premises. They are committed to finding a tenant that will be able to utilise the lower space without compromising the building’s principal western facade.

5.7       The works to be undertaken are significant, given the deterioration of the structure since the earthquakes. They include undertaking strengthening while maintaining much of the heritage fabric and unique character of the building, including work to the foundations, floors, interior walls and roof. They wish to reconstruct the former decorated parapet on the façade as well as reinstate the flagpole and front fence. They also wish to adapt the interior of the building with the insertion of a removable mezzanine structure, as well as altering some windows and doors, and adding a patio space to the rear.

5.8       The owners state that the work ‘…will remedy damaged areas, provide viable space for occupation, and bring the building up to current codes and standards. Without this work, the building’s deterioration will accelerate and sadly a new chapter cannot be added to its storied past.’ They consider that the end result will be ‘…a functional building that can once again contribute to the community.’


 

6.   Option 1 – Heritage Incentive Grant Funding of up to $258,782 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $258,782 from the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund, part from the current financial year and part from the 2019/20 financial year. The second part of the funding would only be paid out in that financial year or later. The applicants are seeking the grant confirmation to give them some certainty of funding so as to start the works as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration of the building.

6.2       The proposed work includes all the required upgrades for structure, fire and emergency egress and fire protection systems that are all required by the intended future use of the building. The building’s previous use as a residence is no longer a viable option. The owners will be applying for resource and building consents for these change of use works.

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

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Propping, scaffolding and deconstruction of façade elements

$24,025

Stonework repairs

$150,000

Façade reinstatement of features (flagpole, parapet, trim)

$44,810

Door and window repairs

$12,590

Façade painting

$12,225

Wall and fence reconstruction

$2,860

Structural work (foundations, steel frame, bracing walls & roof)

$479,677

External repairs

$148,023

Interior heritage feature reinstatement and repairs

$122,406

Professional fees and contingency sums

$199,323

Total of heritage related structural, repair & reconstruction work

$1,195,939

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. However, given the limited amount of available funding and the high demand on the fund, it is proposed that a grant of approximately twenty-one percent would be appropriate for this project.

 

Proposed heritage grant (approx. twenty-one per cent of itemised work)

$258,782

 

Significance

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

6.8       No members of the community are specifically affected by this option. However, in the past members of the Lyttelton Community have indicated their support for the repair and retention of this building.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

·        Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·        Christchurch District Plan

·        Heritage Conservation Policy

·        Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·        Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·        New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

Financial Implications

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

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

 

6.11    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that given the current high demand for assistance, that the funding outlined above is appropriate.  Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation of funding in the current financial year and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations

6.18    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.20    Implementation timeframe – The grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.21    The advantages of this option include:

·     It supports the retention of a ‘Significant’ heritage building;

·     It promotes the repair and reconstruction of a building which is a landmark building in Lyttelton, is adjacent the town centre and contributes to the unique identity of the town centre;

·     It promotes the retention of a building which has dual significance to the district, both as a former Masonic Lodge and as the former studio and residence of one of New Zealand’s foremost contemporary artists, Bill Hammond;

·     The work includes reconstruction of previous exterior features of the building that have been lost over the years;

·     Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building in Lyttelton, where so much heritage was lost following the Canterbury earthquakes;

·     With the grant acting as an incentive, the project to restore the building will generate a significant amount of private investment.

6.22    The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This would be a large grant to a single building.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding, $180,000 (fifteen percent).

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lesser grant of fifteen percent ($180,000) is shown in the table below, split over two years. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than these two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lesser level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a key, ‘Significant’ heritage building;

·   It promotes the repair and reconstruction of a building which is a landmark building in Lyttelton, is adjacent the town centre and contributes to the unique identity of the town centre;

·   It promotes the retention of a building which has dual significance to the district, both as a former Masonic Lodge and as the former studio and residence of one of New Zealand’s foremost contemporary artists, Bill Hammond;

·   The work includes reconstruction of previous features of the building that have been lost over the years;

·   Through a conservation covenant the grant affords protection to the landmark value of the building in Lyttelton, where so much heritage was lost following the Canterbury earthquakes;

·   With the grant acting as an incentive, the project to restore the building will generate a significant amount of private investment.

7.3       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would still be a reasonable grant to a single project but may be insufficient to act as an incentive to the owners to undertake the complex repair and upgrade works;

·   The lower grant funds may undermine the ability of the owners to raise funds from other sources and will make the delivery of the project much harder for the owner.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

26 Canterbury Street Statement of Significance

37

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

10.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/1069683

Presenter(s):

Fiona Wykes – Senior Heritage Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to recommend to Council to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for work to the buildings at 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch, also known as the former Pumphouse.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

a)    approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of $71,509 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch.

b)    note that the applicant has already entered into a full conservation covenant.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – A nominated amount of $71,509 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – A nominated amount of $50,000

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     The work will help to ensure the repair, ongoing use and future protection of this highly significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·     The building has recognised local and national architectural, social, historical and cultural significance;

·     The grant will support the completion of the works outlined, the former Pumphouse will be repaired and upgraded; the owners are committed to the continued use and maintenance of the building.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This is a significant grant for a single building.

·     The proposal to assist the owners in their works on the building is substantially less than the full amount requested by the applicant; a lesser amount may impact on the  likelihood of the works being completed.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building History

5.1       The former Pumphouse is scheduled as a ‘Highly Significant’ (Group 1) building in the Christchurch District Plan. The building is listed ‘Category 2’ by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) List Number 3736. See Attachment A, Statement of Significance for further information.

5.2       The former Pumphouse building has high historical and social significance for its association with the formation of the Christchurch Drainage Board, and the individuals responsible for the sewerage system’s design and construction. It has high cultural significance as it represents the birth of an effective and technologically advanced sewerage system that improved the quality of peoples’ lives, as well as their way of life. The building has high architectural significance, for its utilitarian design and classical detailing. It also has technological and craftsmanship significance for its ability to demonstrate construction and engineering techniques from a particular era. There is contextual significance in that the building is a city landmark, and through the relationship with other buildings on the site and with surviving underground sewerage infrastructure. The building is one of the few visible, above ground components of the city’s 19th century sewerage system.

5.3       The former Pumphouse is a complex of individual buildings, the earliest of which were designed by English civil engineer William Clark. Clark had previously worked for the York and North Midland railway system in England, and the East Indian Railway Company, along with designing drainage schemes for Kingston-upon-Hull, Calcutta, and Madras. He also worked on water supply and drainage schemes for many places in Australia, along with Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.

5.4       The overall building complex is a utilitarian structure with multiple gabled roofs and restrained classical detailing. It is constructed of brick with Oamaru stone details, distinctive multi-paned steel arched windows, arched doors, and round windows in some of the gables. The roofs are a mixture of slate and corrugated iron. Over time the furnace stack and the pump machinery have been removed from the site.

5.5       The current owners of the building are Paddy and Jackie Snowdon. In relation to the Operational Guidelines ‘Potential Conflict of Interest’ disclosure the Committee should note that there is no conflict of interest with this application.

5.6       The buildings suffered moderate damage in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes, although considering their age and masonry construction they performed well. The complex has continued to be occupied, but the owners need to repair and strengthen the buildings to ensure ongoing use of the site. Due to the age and condition of the buildings the owners had been unable to get insurance cover in recent years meaning that there was no cover in place at the time of the Canterbury earthquakes. The cost to repair and strengthen the buildings is considerable and so the owners are seeking help from external funders for the project.

History of the proposed works

5.7       The owners have decided to strengthen the buildings to 67% of New Building Standard (NBS) rather than the minimum required 34%, to ensure the security of the buildings’ future. The owners have obtained both a resource consent, and a building consent for the proposed works.

5.8       The proposed works comprise structural upgrades and repairs to the complex of buildings. The rooves and the brickwork walls are to be repaired and strengthened with metal ties. The windows, doors and stonework are also to be repaired. Items such as the gantry crane are to be retained, and electrics and fire protection upgraded. All the works are in line with the Heritage Incentive Grant Policy – Operational Guidelines, and will contribute towards strengthening and retaining these important Christchurch heritage buildings for ongoing use. Works have been carried out on Buildings One, Two and Five.

Building 2 repaired, and Building 3 not yet started – Owner’s photo, September 2018

Building 1 – June 2018 

5.9       The total cost for the works when the previous grant was applied for (including heritage and non-heritage related costs) was estimated at $1,529,986.70, excluding GST. There is no insurance payment associated with these works. The owners initially requested $400,000 from the Council’s HIG fund, paid over two years. This equated to 26% of the overall heritage related costs, and would generally have been considered to be a reasonable proposal which could be supported by heritage staff. They requested that it be split over two years, which staff noted was a pragmatic request, and also showed an awareness of the limits of the HIG funding. A grant of $200,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grants fund was awarded in October 2017 as shown in the table below. When this grant was awarded the Council informed the owners that they could apply again the following year for a further grant of a similar amount.

5.10    The owners secured further grant funds of $200,000 from the Heritage EQUIP fund, run by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, for strengthening the building to 34% NBS.  The owners are funding the balance of the works through insurance payments from other properties they own, business earnings and a bank loan.

The current application

5.11    As suggested by Council in 2017 the owners of the buildings have reapplied to the HIG fund for a further $200,000. The project has progressed well to date, but anticipated costs have grown and rather than the $1,529,986.70 excluding GST estimated in 2017, the budget is now $1,885,737 excluding GST. The amount being put in by the owners from their own funds has increased to over $980,000, and they are applying to the bank for a loan to cover outstanding amounts – below is the table of the applicants proposed funding for the project

Owners funds

$985,737

Heritage EQUIP Grant (confirmed)

$200,000

Council Heritage Incentive Grant, Stage 1, 2017-2018 (confirmed)

$200,000

Council Heritage Incentive Grant, Stage 2, 2018-2019 (not confirmed)

$200,000

Proposed bank loan

$300,000

Total excluding GST

$1,885,737

 


 

6.   Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of $71,509 (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works are to structurally upgrade and repair the building. They involve structurally upgrading the interior of the building and carrying out repairs and reinstatement works to the interior and exterior fabric, including repairs to the stonework.

6.2       As noted above, overall the total heritage and non-heritage works being proposed are priced at $1,885,737, excluding GST. All relevant costs of the heritage related works, less the grants awarded ($) are summarised in the table below:

 

Particulars

Costs

 (GST exclusive)

Repairs and strengthening

$1,095,647

Lifting and reinstating gantry crane

$6,000

Stonework repairs

$263,000

Professional fees/consents

$100,000

Contingency

$223,700

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$1,688,347

Less previous HIG grant and EQUIP grant

- $400,000

Total of conservation and restoration related work requiring

assistance

$1,288,374

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. This has already been determined to equate to more money than the grant fund could support.

6.4       The building has high historical, and social significance to Canterbury, as well as high cultural and architectural significance. The building also has technological and craftsmanship, and contextual significance. Its ongoing repair, retention and upgrade to ensure its continuing use is worthy of support. Balancing the high cost of the works, and the current limitations of this grant fund has led to the suggestion of a grant of $71,509 being appropriate for this project.  It is less than requested by the applicant, and equates to 5% of the total works. 

6.5       This seeks to balance the value of both the building and the eligible works being undertaken, and the fact that the building has received previous grant funding, albeit limited in relation to the overall costs, but reflecting the limited funds available this year, and the demand for grant funding.

Proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (approx. five percent of itemised work

$71,509

 

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of this option is low in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

6.7       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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

6.9       There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS) NZ Charter 2010

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - for all HIG applications in this financial year and of those presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

 

6.12    It is expected that further grant applications will be received, but staff believe that given the current high demand for assistance, the funding outlined above is appropriate. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation of funding in the current year and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

6.18    Conservation covenants are required under the Heritage Conservation Operational Guidelines for properties receiving Heritage Incentive Grants of $15,000 to $149,999.  A full covenant is already in place on this property.

Risks and Mitigations

6.19    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.21    Implementation timeframe – The grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   The work will help to ensure the repair, ongoing use and future protection of this highly significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The building has recognised local and national architectural, social, historical and cultural significance;

·   The grant will support the completion of the works outlined, the former Pumphouse will be repaired and upgraded; the owners are committed to the continued use and maintenance of the building.

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This is a significant grant for a single building;

·   The preferred option to assist the owners in their works on the building is less than the amount requested by the applicant; this may impact on the likelihood of the works being completed.

7.   Option 2 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of $50,000 (approx. 3% of itemised work)

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of the eligible works. A lesser grant of $50,000 (about 3% of the eligible works) is shown in the table below. A lesser grant has been considered as a second option, and not the preferred option, due to the scale of the overall eligible heritage works for the building – which equates to more than $1,200,000.

7.2       Other grant levels are obviously possible between or above the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lesser level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

·   It would help support the repair, ongoing use and future protection of this highly significant heritage building. The application meets all the criteria for a grant as provided in the Heritage Incentives Grants Policy – Operational Guidelines;

·   The building has recognised local and national architectural, social, historical and cultural significance;

·   Funding would still be available for allocation for the remainder of the 2018/19 financial year.

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This is option to assist the owners in their works on the building is less than the amount requested by the applicant; this may impact on the likelihood of the works being completed.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

544 Tuam Street - Statement of Significance

50

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

11.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 158 High Street, Christchurch

Reference:

18/1127187

Presenter(s):

Fiona Wykes – Senior Heritage Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for work to the building at 158 High Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in response to discussions with the building’s owner and their application for Heritage Incentive Grant funding.

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $142,741 for conservation, strengthening and repair work to the protected heritage building located at 158 High Street, Christchurch subject to the following requirements:

a.         The applicant enters into a limited conservation covenant with Council to cover the grant assisted works;

b.         The grant is split with $72,741 of the grant awarded from the 2018/19 financial year, and $70,000 from the 2019/2020 financial year and the second part not paid out before the start of that financial year.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

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

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of twenty-nine percent (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of twenty percent

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

·     The retention of this structure will assist in reinforcing the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

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

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The grant may seem large to retain a façade.

 

5.   Context/Background

Building History

5.1       The commercial building at 158 High Street is scheduled as a ‘Significant’ Building in the Christchurch District Plan. The ‘Statement of Significance’ for the building is attached to this report (Attachment A).

 

158 High Street – December 2014 (left) and Pre-earthquake 2005 (right)

5.2       The former C F Cotter and Co. building dates from c. 1900, when it replaced a timber building which had previously occupied the site. As the city’s transport system developed High Street became an increasingly important route which encouraged the retail activity that defined this part of the central city for over a century. As with other buildings in this the area, a variety of businesses have occupied the site over time. In 1919 C F Cotter and Co., electrical engineers moved into part of the building and remained in High Street until 2004. They still operate out of premises on Tuam Street, while this building still retains their name on the parapet.

5.3       The building is a good example of late 19th/early 20th Century commercial classicism and has high contextual heritage significance as a remnant of a group of late Victorian and Edwardian commercial buildings. Prior to the Canterbury earthquakes the building had other listed heritage buildings either side of it, also in the commercial classical style. It remains as one of the two remaining buildings on the triangular parcel of land bounded by Lichfield Street, the east side of High Street, and Tuam Street. It retains its contextual significance with the nearby former High Street Post Office, and the façade at 201 High Street, and with other remaining heritage buildings further south on High Street.

5.4       The current owner of the building is Shaun Stockman. Mr Stockman has also bought, and is restoring the heritage façade on the other side of the road at 201 High Street. He recently purchased 158 High Street in order to save as much as is possible of the building for its heritage value. He has had ongoing discussions with Council staff to ensure that his proposals for this building are acceptable, and is obtaining the relevant consents for the proposed works. Mr Stockman is well known for his work with heritage buildings in the Central City and is aware of the challenges of trying to save these important structures.

5.5       The building suffered damage in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and has been unoccupied, and fenced off by shipping containers ever since.

The proposed works

5.6       The owner is planning to develop the site while saving and restoring the heritage facade. While the street façade has remained in reasonable condition, the remainder of the building has not fared so well, with a neighbouring structure collapsing onto the roof of 158 High Street, and the side walls being damaged by demolition of the adjoining structures. The rear section of the building, and the interior have been open to the elements since the earthquakes meaning retention of the building beyond the façade is not feasible.

5.7       The proposed works comprise protecting and propping the façade and removing the damaged rear section of the building. The façade will then be repaired and reinstated where necessary, as well as being structurally upgraded. The propping and containers will then be removed. A new building will be constructed behind the façade once all of these works are complete. 

6.   Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of twenty-nine percent (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed works for which grant assistance is requested comprise structural repairs and upgrades to the façade, along with repairs to brickwork, plaster and windows, the reinstatement of previous heritage architectural details, and the reconstruction of the cantilevered verandah. These works will enable the façade to be retained.

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

6.3       This report proposes funding of $142,741 from the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund, part from th current financial year and part from the 2019/2020 financial year. The second part of the funding would only be paid out in that financial year or later. The applicant is seeking the grant confirmation to enable them to start the works as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration of the building.

6.4       All relevant costs of the works are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Propping and protection of original fabric

$130,095

Structural work

$150,200

Fabric repairs

$139,500

Reconstruction

$42,000

Fees

$23,147

Total of repair, structural and reconstruction work

$484,942

 

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

 

Proposed heritage grant (approx. twenty-nine percent of itemised work)

$142,741

 

Significance

6.6       The level of significance of this option is low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

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

6.7       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.8       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

6.9       There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.10    This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS) NZ Charter 2010

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

6.11    Cost of Implementation - for all HIG applications in this financial year and of those presented at this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.12    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that, given the high demand for assistance at the current time, the funding outlined above is appropriate. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation of funding in the current financial year and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

6.18    A limited conservation covenant is required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.19    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.21    Implementation timeframe – The grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.22    The advantages of this option include:

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

·   The retention of this structure will assist in reinforcing the Central City as the focus for commercial, social and cultural activities;

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

6.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This grant may seem large to retain a façade.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding – twenty percent

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of the eligible works.  A lesser grant of $96,988 over 2 years (20% of the eligible works) is shown in the table below. A lesser grant has been considered as a second option, and not the preferred option, due to the overall eligible heritage works for the item equating to nearly $500,000.

7.2       Other grant levels are obviously possible between the two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lesser level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

                        

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

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

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

·   A greater amount of money is retained in the fund for other eligible projects.

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·    This grant may seem large to retain a façade.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

158 High Street - Statement of Significance

63

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

12.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 226 Kilmore Street

Reference:

19/266

Presenter(s):

Fiona Wykes, Senior Heritage Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for works to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.    Approves a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $100,000 for conservation, strengthening and repair works to the protected heritage building located at 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch subject to the applicant entering into a limited conservation covenant with Council to cover the grant assisted works.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

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

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $100,000, (eighteen percent, preferred option);

·     Option 2 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $60,000, (eleven percent).

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

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

·     The work will enable the retention of one of the very few bullnose verandahs that still remains on a commercial building in Christchurch;

·     The repaired and upgraded building will be a distinctive landmark on a key crossroads in central Christchurch.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     This would be a large grant to a single building.

 

5.   Context/Background

226 Kilmore Street – Brief History

 

                        

Photo: 226 Kilmore Street, December 2014

 

5.1       The building at 226 Kilmore Street dates from c. 1899, and is a property with a commercial ground floor and residential use above. It is scheduled as ‘Significant’ in the Christchurch District Plan. Further information is provided in the attached Statement of Significance (Attachment A).

5.2       The building is a two storey, timber framed corner building that has had a mix of commercial uses over time, primarily grocers or hairdressers, generally with residential use above the shop. This use has continued to the present day, although the current owners are planning to alter the ground floor to create two commercial tenancies, and to let the upper floor as offices.

5.3       The building retains much of its architectural integrity with many original features having survived. Most notable of these is the bullnose verandah, once a common feature of commercial buildings in the city, but now one of only a very few remaining. It is the only surviving building of a group of shops which occupied all four corners of the Kilmore/Barbadoes Street intersection prior to the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes. With its distinctive verandah, double storey height and position on the corner of two of the streets in central Christchurch, the building has considerable landmark significance.

5.4       The building recently changed ownership and, as noted above, the new owners are intending to divide the ground floor into two tenancies and change the use of the first floor into office space whilst retaining the potential for it to return to residential use at a future time.

5.5       As part of the works they are intending to undertake structural upgrades, install a fire alarm system and insulation, and upgrade the electrical wiring and plumbing. The roof, walls and rainwater goods will be repaired, and the windows, doors, internal decorative features, flooring, verandah and staircase will all be repaired and restored. 1960’s alterations to the building will be removed, returning the internal layout to something more aligned with the original.

5.6       The works are significant, but the building has suffered from some neglect since the earthquakes while the previous owner worked to resolve an insurance settlement and decide on the future of the building. Ultimately this led to the sale of the building to the new owner ‘Bullnose Limited’ (the contact is Anna Chesney).

6.   Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of eighteen percent (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of up to $100,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant fund. This will help to enable the new owners to undertake the work to repair, upgrade and conserve this important commercial heritage building.

6.2       The proposed work includes all the required upgrades for structure, fire and emergency egress and fire protection systems that are all required by the intended future use of the building. The building’s previous use partly as a residence is not currently an economically viable option, although the owners are ensuring that the current works do not prevent the use of the first floor being returned to residential use in the future if possible. The owners are applying for resource and building consents for these ‘change of use’ works.

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

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Conservation and restoration works

$106,226

Maintenance works

$240,414

Structural upgrade works

$103,755

Fire and egress works

$8,750

Professional and Council Fees

$82,400

Total of heritage related structural, repair & reconstruction work

$541,545

 

6.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs.  However, given the limited amount of available grant funding and the high demand on the fund, it is proposed that a grant of approximately eighteen percent is appropriate for this project.

Proposed heritage grant (approx. eighteen per cent of itemised work)

$100,000

Significance

6.5       The level of significance of this option is low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding requested being less than $500,000.

6.6       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

6.7       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

6.8       There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option. The Heritage Incentive Grants Scheme is aligned to the Community Outcomes ‘The city’s heritage and taonga are conserved for future generations’. Heritage Incentive Grants contribute towards the number of protected heritage buildings, sites and objects, which is a measure for these outcomes.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.9       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

·     Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·     Christchurch District Plan

·     Heritage Conservation Policy

·     Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·     Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·     New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·     International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) NZ Charter 2010

Financial Implications

6.10    Cost of Implementation for all HIG applications in this financial year, and of those presented at this committee meeting are shown below (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.11    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that given the high demand for assistance at the current time, that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation in the current financial year and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

6.13    Maintenance/Ongoing Costs – There are no ongoing costs associated with this option.

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

Legal Implications

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

6.16    A limited conservation covenant is required in relation to this grant.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.19    Implementation timeframe – the grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

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

·   The work will enable the retention of one of the very few bullnose verandahs that still remains on a commercial building in Christchurch;

·   The repaired and upgraded building will be a distinctive landmark on a key crossroads in central Christchurch.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single building.

7.   Option 2 – A lower level of funding – eleven percent

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects, but has generally been between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of the eligible works. A lesser grant of $60,000 (11% of the eligible works) is shown in the table below. A lesser grant has been considered as an option, but not the preferred option, due to the overall eligible heritage works for the item equating to over $500,000.

7.2       Other grant levels are obviously possible for this project. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lesser level of grants proposed for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.3       The advantages of this option include:

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

·   The work will enable the retention of one of the very few bullnose verandahs that still remains on a commercial building in Christchurch;

·   The repaired and upgraded building will be a distinctive landmark on a key crossroads in central Christchurch.

7.4       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be a large grant to a single building.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Significance - 226-228 Kilmore Street

74

 

 

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

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

13.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton

Reference:

19/67533

Presenter(s):

Brendan Smyth, Team Leader Heritage

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for works to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

2.1       The decision in this report is of low significance in relation to the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The level of significance was determined by the heritage classification of the building and the amount of funding relative to that already approved by Council for allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of $10,000 for 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

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

4.1.2   The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $10,000 (thirty percent - preferred option)

·     Option 2 - A Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $6,437 (twenty percent)

·     Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.2       The advantages of this option include:

·     It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ heritage building in Lyttelton township;

·     It helps to ensure the conservation of the remaining original fabric and the appropriate, like-for-like replacement of damaged and/or decayed fabric;

·     It helps to ensure the building retains its original use and has a viable role as a functioning dwelling;

·     It ensures the streetscape, character and scale of development of this part of the town is retained.

4.3       There are no disadvantages identified with this option.

 

5.   Context/Background

Brief history of the building

5.1       The building at 3 Winchester Street is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as ‘Highly Significant’, and is part of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Lyttelton Historic Area. Further information is provided in the attached ‘Heritage Assessment - Statement of Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The building was originally built circa 1859. It is a two storey timber framed structure, clad with weatherboards and with a pitched roof and two level verandah on the north façade. The verandah includes ornate cast iron fretwork and the gables have decorative carved bargeboards. The structure survived the Great Fire in Lyttelton in 1870. Although the dwelling has been altered many times it still retains many original features and is a record of the changing demands put upon dwelling structures as living demands and lifestyles have evolved over time.

5.3       The Canterbury Earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 resulted in moderate damage and the need to remove the large, centrally placed masonry chimney. There were also new foundations required along with repairs to the superstructure and the two level verandah on the main façade. The earthquake repair works are currently underway but these works have highlighted areas of decay in the heritage fabric particularly the timber weatherboards. The replacement of these elements is not covered by insurance settlement payments. In addition, Medium Density Fibreboard (MDF) skirting boards and architrave components have had to be removed to facilitate repairs to wall linings. It is intended to renew these in more appropriate and hard wearing real timber. It is only these two components of the works which the applicant is seeking grant support for.

5.4       The applicant for the grant is the owner of the building, Mrs Elizabeth Briggs. Although the owner is a former employee of the Council there is no conflict of interest.

 

3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton, January 2019


 

6.   Option 1 – Heritage Incentive Grant 30% (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $10,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund.  The applicant is seeking the grant confirmation to give them some certainty of funding so as to complete the works as soon as possible to prevent further deterioration of the building.

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

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Weatherboard repair and replacement

$27,412

Renewal of MDF skirting and architrave boards with timber

$2,116

Provisional and general sums

$2,658

Total of heritage related structural, repair & reconstruction work

$32,186

 

6.3       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. However, given the limited amount of available grant funding and the high demand on the fund, it is proposed that a grant of approximately thirty percent would be appropriate for this project.

Proposed heritage grant (thirty per cent approx. of itemised work)

$10,000

 

Significance

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

6.5       There are no engagement requirements in the Policy Operational Guidelines for this grant scheme.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

·   Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·   Christchurch District Plan

·   Heritage Conservation Policy

·   Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·   Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·   New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of implementation for all Heritage Incentive Grant applications in this financial year and of those presented at this Committee meeting are shown below (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.10    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that given the high demand for assistance at the current time, that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation in the current financial year and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

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

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

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

Legal Implications

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

6.16    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. In this case, the proposed grant of $10,000 is below the threshold level for a covenant to be required.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the works and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.19    Implementation timeframe – The grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ heritage building in the Lyttelton township;

·   It helps to ensure the conservation of the remaining original fabric and the appropriate, like for like replacement of damaged and/or decayed fabric;

·   It helps to ensure the building retains its original use and has a viable role as a functioning dwelling;

·   It ensures the streetscape, character and scale of development of this part of the town is retained.

6.21    There are no disadvantages identified with this option.

7.   Option 2 - A lower level of funding – $6,437 (twenty percent)

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 would be for a lower level of financial support to the project. Grant support has varied on previous projects but has been generally between thirty and fifty percent of the cost of eligible works. A lesser grant of twenty percent ($6,437) is shown in the table below. Other grant levels are obviously possible other than these two options. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lower level of grants for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

* Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.2       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a ‘Highly Significant’ heritage building in the Lyttelton township;

·   It helps to ensure the conservation of the remaining original fabric and the appropriate, like for like replacement of damaged and/or decayed fabric;

·   It helps to ensure the building retains its original use and has a viable role as a functioning dwelling;

·   It ensures the streetscape, character and scale of development of this part of the town is retained.

7.3       The disadvantage of this option is that the smaller grant may undermine the ability of the to complete the delivery of the project.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Statement of Heritage Significance, 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton

85

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Approved By

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

14.    Heritage Incentive Grant Approval for 30 Hackthorne Road

Reference:

19/67578

Presenter(s):

Victoria Bliss, Conservation Projects Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to approve a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) for works to 30 Hackthorne Road, Christchurch.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

Approve a Heritage Incentive Grant of up to $10,000 for the dwelling at 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere.

 

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

·     Level of Service: 1.4.3.0 Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – A fixed sum of $10,000 (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – A fixed sum of $14,500

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     It supports the retention of a significant heritage building;

·     It supports the conservation of original heritage fabric and features, including deferred maintenance to protect the exterior envelope of the dwelling;

·     It helps to ensure the building is retained as a viable, well maintained dwelling.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     It is small grant in relation to the overall costs of the work.

 

5.   Context/Background

Brief history of the building

                        

                         Photo: 30 Hackthorne Road, November 2015

 

5.1       The dwelling is scheduled in the Christchurch District Plan as ‘Significant’. It dates from the early 20th Century, and is part of the first phase of development of the hill suburb of Cashmere. Further information is provided in the attached ‘Statement of Significance’ (Attachment A).

5.2       The dwelling is a large, two storey timber framed house with a slate roof, built during World War One and designed in the English Gothic Revival style. The key elements of this style are highly visible in this example with timber shingles, board and batten cladding, tall brick chimney stacks (reinstated following the Canterbury earthquakes), a slate roof and timber casement windows. Although the architect of the building has not been identified, the son of the original owner worked for two well-known Christchurch architects around this time – Cecil Wood in 1915 and Samuel Hurst Seager in 1917.  The current owners are Hugh Roberts and Jessica Mouat.

5.3       The dwelling retains many of its original architectural features, both internally and externally. The work that this grant application relates to is conservation and deferred maintenance following the completion of earthquake repairs, upgrades and an addition.


 

6.   Option 1 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of 2% (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       This report proposes funding of $10,000 from the Heritage Incentive Grant Fund. The applicants are seeking the funding to assist with the conservation and maintenance of the dwelling, following a large and complex repair, upgrade, reconstruction and alteration project. The conservation and maintenance is overdue, but has had to be deferred until the completion of the earthquake repair works. All the works are being undertaken by craftsmen and contractors with experience in heritage conservation projects.

6.2       The application and the information in this report relate only to the conservation and maintenance costs. Works which are earthquake damage repairs, upgrades and alterations have been excluded from the application and the information in this report. All relevant heritage costs of the remaining works have been summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Joinery conservation

$92,354

Exterior painting

$138,224

Slate roof

$207,744

Provisional and general sums

$54,162

Total of heritage related maintenance and conservation work

$492,484

 

6.3       The Operational guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. However, given the limited amount of available funding in the current financial year, and the high demand on the fund, it is proposed that a sum of $10,000 is awarded to this project. This equates to approximately two percent of the eligible works.

Proposed heritage grant (two per cent approx. of itemised work)

$10,000

 

Significance

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

6.5       There are no engagement requirements associated with this option.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

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

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.8       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies, as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    Christchurch City Council Multi-cultural Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

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

Financial Implications

6.9       Cost of Implementation – for all HIG applications in this financial year and of those presented at this Committee meeting are shown below (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.10    This grant would allocate the remaining funds available for the 2018/29 financial year.  Given the high demand for assistance at the current time, staff recommend that the funding outlined above is an appropriate level of allocation which acknowledges and supports the conservation works being undertaken.

6.11    It is anticipated that further applications will be received in the current financial year. Applicants would be advised of the full allocation of the current years grant fund and could prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

6.13    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – There are no ongoing costs associated with this option.

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

Legal Implications

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

6.16    Covenants are a comprehensive form of protection of the buildings because they are registered against the property title, ensuring that the Council’s investment is protected. In this case, the proposed grant of $10,000 is below the threshold level for a covenant to be required.

Risks and Mitigations

6.17    The Council’s Heritage Grant Policy Operational Guidelines only allow funds to be paid out upon completion of the work and upon presentation of receipts. This ensures that the grant scheme is effective and that funds are not diverted or lost.

Implementation

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

6.19    Implementation timeframe – The grant recipient has an 18-month time period from the date of approval to undertake the works and to claim the grant. An application to extend this timeframe can be made to the Committee.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.20    The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a significant heritage building;

·   It supports the conservation of original heritage fabric and features, including deferred maintenance to protect the exterior envelope of the dwelling;

·   It helps ensure the building retains it use and functions as a viable, well maintained dwelling.

6.21    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is small grant in relation to the overall costs of the work;

·   It would commit the remaining heritage grant funds for the 2018/2019 financial year.

7.   Option 2 – A Heritage Incentive Grant of 3%

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 is for a higher level of funding, at 3% of the heritage conservation works to the dwelling. Grant support has varied on other projects, but has generally been in the region of up to 30-50% of the cost of the eligible works. There is insufficient grant funding available to provide this level of support.

7.2       Should the Committee make the decision to allocate other grant applications at this meeting a lower percentage, an increased grant total of $14,500 could be available. This equates to approximately 3% of the works. This is not the preferred option as staff are recommending that other applications have a higher priority for the limited funding available.

7.3       This option would have the same impacts and alignments as Option 1. The table below includes the previously approved grants along with the lower level of grants proposed for all of the current applications for this Committee meeting (with the percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$153,601

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.4       The advantages of this option include:

·   It supports the retention of a significant heritage building;

·   It supports the conservation of original heritage fabric and features, including deferred maintenance to protect the exterior envelope of the dwelling;

·   It helps to ensure the building is retained as a viable, well maintained dwelling.

7.5       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It is a small grant in relation to the overall costs of the work

·   It would reduce funding available to other applicants;

·   It would commit the remaining heritage grant funds for the 2018/2019 financial year.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

30 Hackthorne Road - Statement of Significance

96

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Fiona Wykes - Senior Heritage Advisor

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

15.    Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

Reference:

18/1295599

Presenter(s):

Victoria Bliss, Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee to consider a retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant for works to the building at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa, and if necessary for the Council to approve the removal of the limited conservation covenant.

Origin of Report

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

2.   Significance

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

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

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Does not approve a retrospective Heritage Incentive Grant to the protected heritage building located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa.

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

2.         Approves the removal of the limited conservation covenant on the property located at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa;

3.         Notes that the cost of removing the covenant is covered by Council as no grant has been disbursed to this property.

 

4.   Key Points

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

4.1.1   Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

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

·     Level of Service: 1.4.3.0 Maintain the sense of place by conserving the city’s heritage places.

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – No grant awarded. Limited covenant removed from the property (preferred option);

·     Option 2 – A retrospective grant awarded for 20% of the works originally awarded a grant;

·     Option 3 – A grant award of 20% on the basis of the new costs and works submitted.

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Heritage Incentive Grant funding will not be awarded retrospectively to a project;

·     The Council would be acting in accordance with the Heritage Incentive Grant Policy Operational Guidelines;

·     By not awarding a grant, funds remain available to provide support for other projects.

 

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     The Council could be perceived as not supporting an owner in the conservation of their heritage building and the owners may consider they are not being supported in the conservation of their heritage building;

·     The Council could be perceived as being inconsistent as the works have previously been awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant;

·     The limited conservation covenant currently registered on the property and associated with the previous application would be removed.

 

5.   Context/Background

                58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa – September 2015

Building history

5.1       The building at 58 Rue Lavaud is scheduled as Significant (Group 2) in the Christchurch District Plan, and is listed Category 2 by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga (HNZPT) List Number 5287.

5.2       The detached two storey building was constructed in 1883 as a pharmacy for Henry Citron. The architect was Thomas Cane, at one time the Canterbury Provincial architect, and unusually the building retained its original use throughout its lifetime, until the last few years. The building has been owned by the same family since 1935.

5.3       The exterior of the building has only been modified slightly over the years, with the addition of two more windows on the first floor side of the Cross Street façade, and a series of alterations to the shop front and entrance on the street corner. There has also been an extension to the rear of the building, facing the harbour, which includes a first floor deck, with a staircase providing independent access to the first floor flat. Internally the alterations have been more substantial to accommodate changing use requirements over time.

5.4       The building is owned by the applicant, Richard Stewart.

History of the Heritage Incentive Grant for 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa

5.5       The history and administration of this grant and the related building and resource consents from the Council has been complex.  A brief summary is set out below, given the nature of this application.

5.6       On 31 March 2015 the applicant was awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant (HIG) of $81,482. This was for structural upgrade works, upgrades to the fire protection, and associated fees and on site costs. The overall costs for the work were estimated at $162,964 and the grant awarded was 50% of these costs. A letter of Approval of Grant, dated 1 April 2015, was sent to the applicant. As is set out in the Heritage Incentive Grants policy, the grant was available for an 18-month period, which lapsed on 31 September 2016. As part of the grant award, a limited conservation covenant was placed on the property.

5.7       Between March and May 2015 the resource consent application was put on hold by the applicant as the scope of works for the project were extended and new plans required. There were also outstanding RFI (Request for Further Information) on both the resource and building consent applications. The RFIs included a request for a Temporary Protection Plan (TPP) to protect the heritage fabric of the building during the works, details of the extent of alterations and removal of heritage fabric from the first floor, and details of the methodologies for the works proposed. On 6 May 2015, the applicant responded requesting that the TPP be waived, but did not supply any other information.

5.8       During May-June 2015 emails were exchanged with the project manager for the works, seeking clarification as to what works had been undertaken, and information on the scope of works for the project which were still to be completed. Resource and building consent had not yet been issued. Requests for information were made around the scope to enable staff to work with the applicant to resolve any issues with resource consent and compliance with the conditions of the Heritage Incentive Grant.

5.9       In September 2015 a site visit was undertaken to the property while staff were in Akaroa on other matters. It was observed that the works related to the grant appeared to have been completed and were now obscured by new wall coverings; grant recipients are required to notify staff when works commence which enables staff to confirm the works are consistent with the grant.  In this case it was not possible to determine the extent of heritage fabric which had been removed during the works, or ensure that conservation principles had been applied as required by the heritage operational guidelines.

5.10    In June 2016 the owners were sent a 23-month reminder letter by the Council noting that they had yet to apply for their code compliance certificate for building works.

5.11    On 29 February 2016 the applicant provided details of the works undertaken to the building and requested a retrospective resource consent be granted. The retrospective resource consent was granted on 23 May 2016. The consent report noted that some elements of the scope of works undertaken had had an adverse effect on the heritage values and fabric of the building. For example, no representative samples of original materials or technologies were left in situ as evidence of the original construction; other original fabric was removed and replaced with new materials which were not date stamped.

5.12    In early August 2016 the project managers contacted Council heritage staff asking whether any documentation was required beyond Code of Compliance documentation in order to process the grant. A detailed list of the requirements was provided, which also noted that one condition of the grant had not been met as no site visit had been arranged for certification of the works, and they were now obscured. No response was received.

5.13    In June 2017 the Council sent a letter to the owner noting that an application for a Code Compliance Certificate had still not been made and if it were not received by 16 July 2017 the Council would send a refusal to issue a code compliance certificate letter. Documentation was subsequently provided dated 29 June 2017, 30 June 2017, and 07 August 2017.

5.14    The applicants requested payment of the grant on 25 August 2017; the grant had lapsed on 31 September 2016. This request was declined noting that the grant had lapsed and the non-compliance with the conditions of the grant.

5.15    On 20 September 2017 a letter was received from the applicant’s lawyer objecting to the withdrawal of the grant. A response was provided articulating the situation, but also providing a way forward which the option for the applicant to make a further application for Council to consider (see attachment B).

5.16    On 3 October 2018 an application was submitted for a retrospective grant for works carried out in 2015 to the building at 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa. This report relates to that application.

History of the eligible works

5.17    The eligible works consist of structural upgrades, conservation and maintenance as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floors;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys.

 

5.18    Projected costings in 2015 were as follows:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Structural upgrade work

$94,542

Upgrade to fire linings

$52,822

Structural engineer’s fees

$1,332

Site management, P & G, service charges and travel costs

$14,268

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$162,964

 

5.19    A grant of 50% was approved by the Community Committee on 31 March 2015 for $81,482.

Heritage Incentive Grant application, October 2018

5.20    The owners of 58 Rue Lavaud have submitted a retrospective application for a grant in October 2018 for the following works:

·    All the previous works from 2015 listed above;

·    Disabled toilet;

·    Disabled access;

·    Fire alarm;

·    Additional engineering;

·    Council fees.

 

The additional works would have been eligible for Heritage Incentive Grant funding at the time, other than the disabled toilet (which would be eligible now with the 2018 changes to the grant criteria). While this was a required Building Code upgrade, the grant scheme is generally limited to structural upgrades, fire and security protection, access to buildings, and services where they are being replaced due to damage or deterioration. It should be noted that these works would have been required to be undertaken in a manner consistent with the conservation principles and practice of the ICOMOS (NZ) Charter.

 

 

5.21    The applicant has stated that the previous work came in at a lower total than originally estimate - $158,081. All relevant costs are summarised in the table below:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Disabled access

$15,435

Fire protection

$11,526

Additional engineering

$12,374

Resource consent fees

$261

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$39,596

Previous eligible costs

$158,081

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$197,677


 

6.   Option 1 - No grant awarded. Limited covenant removed from the property (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       It is recommended that no grant is awarded to the applicant for this property for the following reasons:

·    This is consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy.

·    The previous grant lapsed, and despite notification to the owners of this, no action was taken on their part within the timeframes set out in the grant policy.

·    It is not possible for staff to confirm that the works have been undertaken consistent with grant policy, as this grant would be retrospective.

It is noted that a limited conservation covenant was placed on the property when the previous Heritage Incentive Grant was granted, and since no grant has been paid to the owners, the Council should cover the cost of removing the limited covenant. Should the decision be made to support Option 1, a recommendation is included in this report to remove the covenant.

Significance

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

6.3       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.6       This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies as listed below:

·    Christchurch Central Recovery Strategy

·    Christchurch District Plan

·    Heritage Conservation Policy

·    Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy

·    New Zealand Urban Design Protocol

·    Christchurch City Council Multi-Cultural Strategy

·    International Council on Monuments and Site (ICOMOS) NZ Charter 2010

 

 

 

 

 

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – for all Heritage Incentive Grant applications in this financial year, and of those presented at this Committee meeting are shown below (with the percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (21% in total over 2 years*)

$158,782

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (5%)

$71,509

Proposed grant to 158 High Street ( 29% in total over 2 years*)

$72,741

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (18%)

$100,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street (30%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (2%)

$10,000

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (0%)

$0

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$0

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$100,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$70,000

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$527,700

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

6.8       It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that, given the high demand for assistance, the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation at this time. Future building owners enquiring about funding can be advised of the full allocation of the 2018/19 financial year funds and prepare for an application in July within the 2019/2020 financial year.

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

6.10    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - there are no ongoing costs associated with this option.

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

Legal Implications

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

6.13    As a covenant is already in place on this property, should Council approve the staff recommendations this will require the covenant to be removed.

Risks and Mitigations

6.14    There is a risk that the applicant expects funding support through this funding application as a result of having previously been awarded a grant, and their belief that they were not required to take action when notified of the lapsing grant. This may result in them disagreeing with the decision and questioning the decision making process.

6.15    The lapsing and non-payment of the previous grant has already been reviewed by Council’s legal team, and the suggestion of removal of the conservation covenant at no cost to the applicant was a recommendation of that review. See Attachment B for previous correspondence with the   lawyers on the matter.

Implementation

6.16    Implementation dependencies – the works related to the grant application have already been completed. Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   This decision would be consistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy;

·   By not awarding a grant, funds remain available to provide support for other projects which are not applying retrospectively and who are adopting an approach consistent with heritage conservation principles.

 

6.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   The Council could be perceived as not supporting an owner in the conservation of their heritage building and the owners may consider they are not being supported in the conservation of their heritage building;

·   There could be a perception that Council is acting inconsistently as the works have previously been awarded a Heritage Incentive Grant;

·   The limited conservation covenant currently on the property would be removed.

7.   Option 2 - A retrospective grant awarded for 20% of the works originally awarded a grant

Option Description

7.1       Option 2 provides for a retrospective grant to be awarded to the applicant, but only in relation to the original estimate of costs, and that it be awarded at the percentage which is currently the standard percentage being awarded to applicants for works with relatively higher costs – namely 20%.

7.2       This would not equate to the amount of the grant initially awarded to the applicants in 2015; however it would be in line with current practice.

7.3       The works applied for consist of structural upgrade works, conservation and maintenance works as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floor;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys.

 

7.4       Costings in 2015 were as follows:

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Structural upgrade work

$94,542

Upgrade to fire linings

$52,822

Structural engineer’s fees

$1,332

Site management, P & G, service charges and travel costs

$14,268

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$162,964

 

7.5       The applicants have stated that the actual costs for the works in 2015 came in slightly lower than anticipated, as follows:

Particulars

Costs (GST exclusive)

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$158,081

 

7.6       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. There is already a high demand for the grant funds for this financial year and where works are of a higher value, grants are generally being offered and awarded at less than 30% of eligible costs. It is recommended that 20% of eligible works could be an acceptable level of grant, which would equate to $31,616. However, due to limited funds remaining for allocation this year, other grants would need to be adjusted down in order to meet this level of grant funding for this project.

Overall proposed Heritage Incentive Grant (20% of eligible works)

$31,616

Significance

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

7.8       There are no engagement requirements for this level of significance.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.9       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

7.10    There are no community groups or members that are specifically affected by this option.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.12    Cost of Implementation – the table below includes the previously approved grants, along with the lower level of grants for all of the current application for this committee meeting are shown below (with the lower percentage of the works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20% of original funded works)

$31,616

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$121,985

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

7.13    It is expected that further grant applications will be received but staff believe that given the high demand for assistance, that the funding outlined above will be an appropriate level of allocation for this option.

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

7.15    HIGs and conservation covenants provide assistance for the retention, maintenance and enhancement of heritage items and buildings.

7.16    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – there will be no ongoing maintenance costs to the Council as a result of this grant.

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

Legal Implications

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

7.19    The property already has a limited conservation covenant in place.

Risks and Mitigations

7.20    There is a risk that awarding a retrospective grant for these works may set a precedent for others to consider applying for retrospective consent.  It could also set a precedent for works being completed in a manner which is not consistent with conservation principles or which does not meet the conditions of resource consent.

 

7.20.1   If Council were to award a grant, correspondence with the applicant would be clear that the reason for awarding a retrospective grant in these circumstances is based on the fact that:

·    the property was previously awarded a HIG which was not claimed within the policy timeframes;

·    evidence has been supplied that the works were completed to an acceptable standard for Building Code compliance, noting that the manner in which the works were undertaken has resulted in a loss of heritage fabric and values

·    and no additional funding is being proposed beyond that which was previously agreed.

Implementation

7.21    Implementation dependencies - the works have already been completed.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.22    The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will be seen to be supporting an owner in the retention and repair of their heritage building;

·   The limited conservation covenant will remain on the property.

7.23    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   It would be inconsistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy.

·   Council will be awarding a grant retrospectively for works not certified prior to completion;

·   Less funds will be available to award to other eligible projects that are not applying for retrospective funding and who are adopting an approach consistent with heritage conservation principles.

·   .

 

8.   Option 3 - A retrospective grant awarded of 20% on the basis of the new costs and works submitted in October 2018.

Option Description

8.1       Option 3 would provide for a retrospective grant to be awarded to the applicant for all relevant costs incurred, and that it be awarded at the percentage which is currently the more typical percentage being awarded to applicants for works with higher costs – namely 20%.

8.2       This would not equate to the amount of grant initially awarded to the applicants back in 2015, however the percentage would be in line with current practice.

8.3       The works applied for consist of structural upgrade works, conservation and maintenance works as follows:

·    Replacement of damaged ceilings with new structural diaphragms;

·    Replacement of selected wall linings with structural bracing;

·    Seismic upgrade to ground floor and sub-structure and installation of new floor;

·    New fire rated linings as required;

·    Removal of remaining brick chimneys;

·    Disabled access;

·    Fire alarm system;

·    Additional engineering costs;

·    Council fees.

 

 

Particulars

Costs

(GST exclusive)

Disabled access

$15,435

Fire protection

$11,526

Additional engineering

$12,374

Resource consent fees

$261

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$39,596

Previous eligible costs

$158,081

Total cost of conservation and restoration related works

$197,677

 

8.4       The Operational Guidelines for the Heritage Incentive Grants Policy provide for a grant of up to fifty percent of the total heritage related costs. There has been high demand for grant funds in the current financial year, and where works are of a higher value, grants are generally being offered and awarded at less than 30% of costs. For this proposal to be in line with other grants offered in this financial year, it is suggested that 20% of eligible works could be an acceptable level of grant to offer in this option.

Overall proposed heritage grant (20% of all new eligible works)

$39,535

 

8.5       Other grants are obviously possible, varying between the three options proposed. Apart from the level of financial support, this option has all the same impacts and alignments as Option 2. This option is only possible if all the other proposed grants are offered at a lower level of funding. The table below includes the previous approved grants, along with the lower level proposed grants for this Committee meeting are shown below (with the lower percentage of works to be funded in brackets):

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

$697,700

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

 $76,342

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

$88,650

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

$12,678

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

$5,136

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

$6,500

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

$63,808

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

$21,554

Total grants approved to date

$274,668

 

 

Total grant funding available for allocation

$423,032

Proposed grant to 26 Canterbury Street, Lyttelton (15% in total over 2 years*)

$90,000

Proposed grant to 544 Tuam Street, Christchurch (3%)

$50,000

Proposed grant to 158 High Street (20% in total over 2 years*)

$48,494

Proposed grant to 226 Kilmore Street, Christchurch (11%)

$60,000

Proposed grant to 3 Winchester Street, Lyttelton (20%)

$6,437

Proposed grant to 30 Hackthorne Road, Cashmere (3%)

$14,500

Proposed grant to 58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa (20% of all works undertaken)

$39,535

Total available funds remaining for 2018/2019

$114,066

 

 

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 26 Canterbury St

$90,000

*Proposed commitment from the 2019/20 financial year for 158 High Street

$48,494

Total Available Funds remaining for 2019/2020

$559,206

*Commitments over two financial years are proposed for larger scale and longer term projects

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

8.6       The advantages of this option include:

·   The Council will be seen to be supporting an owner in the retention and repair of their heritage building;

·   The limited conservation covenant will remain on the property.

8.7       The disadvantages of this option include:

·   This would be inconsistent with the Heritage Incentive Grant policy

·   Council will be awarding a grant retrospectively for works not certified prior to completion;

·   Less funds are available to award to other eligible projects that are not applying for retrospective funding and who are adopting a conservation approach.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

58 Rue Lavaud, Akaroa - Statment of Significance

115

b

58 Rue lavaud - Corresponce re Heritage Incentive Grant - October 2017

119

 

 

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

Victoria Bliss - Heritage Conservation Projects Planner

Approved By

Brendan Smyth - Team Leader Heritage

Carolyn Ingles - Head of Urban Regeneration, Design and Heritage

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

16.   Community Facilities Network Plan

Reference:

19/207225

Presenter(s):

John Filsell, Head of Community Support Governance and Partnerships, Paul McKeefry, Community Facilities Specialist.

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to update the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee on the development of the Community Facilities Network Plan.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       The development of a Community Facilities Network Plan project is underway and will include advice on specific facility opportunities identified by Council.

2.2       This report provides an overview of project goals, scope and timeframe along with emerging information.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Social, Community Development and Housing Committee:

1.         Receives the report.

4.   Key Points

4.1       Key points are discussed in section 5 of this report below.

5.   Context/Background

Issue or Opportunity

5.1       A Community Facilities Network Plan us being developed that will provide a framework to inform and guide Council’s decision making processes over the provision and operation of community facilities. It will also provide information on specific facility opportunities identified by Council; namely, a Shirley Community Centre, a Multicultural Centre, a Centre for the Dallington-Avondale-Burwood area and an Okains Bay Community Centre.

5.2       Project objectives include:

·   Explore the feasibility of four potential community facilities identified by Council.

·   Describe current community facility provision including use, capacity, degree to which facilities are fit-for-purpose, cost and asset condition.

·   Develop a current list and framework for recording facilities provided by Council and others.

·   Cross-reference existing provision against community need.

·   Develop a framework and criteria that assists Council in making decisions on the provision of community facilities including working with others.

·   Produce a Network Plan as a living document to be updated over time.

Strategic Alignment

5.3       The LTP 2018-2028 Service Plan is aligned with Council’s strategic direction of enabling active citizenship and connected communities in respect of community facilities, it states:

·   We [Council] provide community centres, halls and houses to encourage participation in local activities and build a sense of community.

·   We [Council] offer support to community organisations to help them deliver the valuable services they provide.

5.4       On 22 June 2018 Council resolved (CLTP/2018/00017):

·   That the Council requests staff to complete the Community Facilities Network Plan as soon as practicable; and approves an additional $170,000 operational expenditure in 2018/19 to expedite this, inform next year’s and future years’ annual plans. Potential developments include but are not limited to; the Shirley Community Centre, a Multicultural Centre, a Centre for Avondale, Burwood and Dallington area and an Okains Bay Community Centre.

Network Plan Scope

5.5       The Plan will primarily cover community facilities owned and/or managed by Christchurch City Council including halls, community centres and cottages, leased facilities for volunteer libraries, toy libraries, community gardens and play centres.  For the avoidance of doubt these are detailed in Community Facilities Asset Management Plan (17/696137).

5.6       Other facilities will be analysed to inform the “network” and identify opportunities to partner with others and/or signal gaps:

·   Community facilities (or similar) situated on reserve managed the Parks Unit.

·   Council-owned heritage classified buildings used as community facilities.

·   Facilities owned by others.

5.7       The plan process will consider but not be limited to the following inputs:

·   Demographic, e.g. – Population, Diversity, Geographical spread

·   Financial, - CAPEX for new and R&R, OPEX

·   Range of options for facility provision, including but not limited to:

·     Mixed model use such as community centre and libraries (Citizen Hub Strategy)

·     Facilities provided in partnership including draft partnership documents and templates 

·     The promotion of non-Council facilities

·     Non-asset solutions.

·   Current and planned provision of facilities by Council and others.

·   Utilization and availability of facilities.

5.8       Council owned facilities currently leased by Early Learning Centres will not be included in the Plan as Council has approved a process to determine its future involvement (13 December 2018).

Project time frame

5.9       The project involves two workstreams that are interconnected. The development of a Network Plan and the consideration of potential facility opportunities identified by Council (see section 5.1 of this report).

5.10    Information on the identified facilities will be available to Council in order to inform any debate at the conclusion of the 2019/2020 Annual Plan process in June 2019.  Any Council decisions on these facilities in the Annual Plan process will inform and update the Draft Network Plan which will then be finalised for Council consideration prior to September 30 2019.  Conversely the emerging findings of the Network Plan will be used to inform the advice provided to Council on the identified facilities.

5.11    The table below summarises the key outputs and dates:

Project Output

Date

Initiate background research, project plan including timelines and milestones

29 October 2018

Finalise project team and engage contractors

13 December 2018

Update and finalise a detailed project plan with timelines and milestones

15 February 2019

Update SCDH Committee

6 March 2019

Community Board engagement:

March 2019

Information report on non-Council facilities and their availability

March 2019

Individual draft feasibility assessments for Shirley, Okains Bay and Burwood-Avondale-Dallington facilities

March 2019

First Draft Network Plan available (will have gaps)

Late April 2019

Draft Business Cases for Shirley, Okains Bay and Burwood-Avondale-Dallington facilities

May 2019

Information from Draft network Plan and draft facility feasibility/business cases used to inform officer comment on Annual Plan submissions

April –May 2019

Report to SCDH Committee covering the Draft Network plan and feasibility and business cases (if applicable) for the four identified facilities

5 June 2019

Council consideration of facilities as part of the Annual Plan in the context of the draft Network Plan

June 2019

Present report Draft Network Plan and recommendations to the Council for consideration and decision, primarily on community engagement

18 July 2019

Present Draft Network Plan to the Council for consideration and adoption

26 September 2019

 

Network Update

5.12    The project team will provide an update on Council’s current suite of community facility assets, their condition and fitness for purpose.

5.13    The project team will provide an update on Council’s partnership approach to activating community facilities.

Facility Update

5.14    The project team will provide an update on progress on four facility opportunities as of, namely:

·   Dallington-Avonside-Burwood

·   Shirley

·   Okains Bay

·   Multicultural Centre.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Author

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Approved By

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizen and Community

   

 


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

17.   Resolution to Exclude the Public

Section 48, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.

 

I move that the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, namely items listed overleaf.

 

Reason for passing this resolution: good reason to withhold exists under section 7.

Specific grounds under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution: Section 48(1)(a)

 

Note

 

Section 48(4) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 provides as follows:

 

“(4)     Every resolution to exclude the public shall be put at a time when the meeting is open to the public, and the text of that resolution (or copies thereof):

 

             (a)       Shall be available to any member of the public who is present; and

             (b)       Shall form part of the minutes of the local authority.”

 

This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Section 6 or Section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:


Social, Community Development and Housing Committee

06 March 2019

 

 

 

ITEM NO.

GENERAL SUBJECT OF EACH MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED

SECTION

SUBCLAUSE AND REASON UNDER THE ACT

PLAIN ENGLISH REASON

WHEN REPORTS CAN BE RELEASED

18

Public Excluded Social, Community Development and Housing Committee Minutes - 5 December 2018

 

 

Refer to the previous public excluded reason in the agendas for these meetings.

 

 

 



[1] Data used in this document has been collected by co-author Vicky Steel (Project Wingz) and is not for use or publication outside of Christchurch City Council without consent

[2] Note that it is possible that the predation may skip a year (as per 2017) when the returning numbers to the colonies are smaller than usual.