Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Christchurch City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Thursday 9 May 2019

Time:                                   9.30am

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

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mayor Lianne Dalziel

Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner

Councillor Vicki Buck

Councillor Jimmy Chen

Councillor Phil Clearwater

Councillor Pauline Cotter

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Anne Galloway

Councillor James Gough

Councillor Yani Johanson

Councillor Aaron Keown

Councillor Glenn Livingstone

Councillor Raf Manji

Councillor Tim Scandrett

Councillor Deon Swiggs

Councillor Sara Templeton

 

 

3 May 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Dr Karleen Edwards

Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8554

 

 

Jo Daly

Council Secretary

941 8581

jo.daly@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.
Watch Council meetings live on the web:
http://councillive.ccc.govt.nz/live-stream

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1.        Apologies......................................................................................................... 5

2.        Declarations of Interest...................................................................................... 5

3.        Public Participation........................................................................................... 5

3.1       Public Forum...................................................................................................................... 5

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 5

4.        Presentation of Petitions.................................................................................... 5

Community Board Monthly Reports

5.        Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council................ 7

6.        Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council............... 15

7.        Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council................................. 19

8.        Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council......................... 27

9.        Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council......... 33

10.      Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council................................ 37

11.      Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council - April 2019..................................................................................................................... 43

Community Board Part A Reports

12.      Road Stopping - 110 Sawyers Arms Road.............................................................. 47

13.      Banks Peninsula Property Review Process........................................................... 65

14.      New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5............................................ 119

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

15.      Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 10 April 2019........ 185

16.      9 Cathedral Square - Structures on Roads Proposal.............................................. 191

Rockfall Protection Structures Committee

17.      Rockfall Protection Structures Committee Minutes - 9 April 2019........................... 263

Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee

18.      Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 19 March 2019........ 267

19.      Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 16 April 2019.......... 277

Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee

20.      Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 19 February 2019.... 283

21.      Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 28 March 2019 291

Staff Reports

22.      Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton: Transition of leadership and next steps............................................................................................... 299

23.      Hearings Panel report to the Council on the QEII Master Plan................................ 341

24.      Community Resilience Partnership Fund............................................................ 371

25.      Taking Toi Otautahi - Christchurch Arts Strategy out to Consultation..................... 383

26.      Progress reports on the Council's strategic priorities........................................... 399

27.      Process to consider annual Living Wage Rate adjustments to Council employees..... 409

28.      Delegation for approval of submission on the Inquiry into the Earthquake Commission 413

29.      Council's Response to 15 March 2019................................................................. 417

30.      Chief Executive's Report - April 2019.................................................................. 455

31.      Resolution to Exclude the Public...................................................................... 468  

 

 

 


Council

09 May 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.   Public Participation

3.1  Public Forum

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

3.2  Deputations by Appointment

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

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

4.   Presentation of Petitions

There were no Presentation of Petitions at the time the agenda was prepared.

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

5.     Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/429761

Presenter(s):

Mike Mora, Chairperson
Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board report for April 2019.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board held meetings on 9 April 2019 and 30 April 2019.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Approval of Parking Bays, No Stopping, P3 and School Buses Only Parking Restrictions on Aidanfield Drive outside Aidanfield Christian School

·   Declined the removal request for the 22 Oak Trees on Villa Grove

·   Approval of the south car park plan at Halswell Domain

·   Allocations made from the  2018-19 Youth Development Fund to seven local recipients

·   Allocation made from the 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund to a local organisation

·   Approval of Bus Stop adjacent to 132 and 143 Penrudock Rise

·   Approval of the Harrington Park Play Space Renewal Landscape Plan and allocation of up to $25,000 from its 20189-19 Discretionary Response Fund for three additional elements for the play space area.

·   Approval of No Stopping Restrictions on part of Treffers Road and Parkhouse Road

The Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board also held a Joint Extraordinary Meeting with the Waimāero /Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board on 30 April 2019 and decisions were made regarding the provision of bus stops in Waimairi Road and Greers Road associated with the changes made by Environment Canterbury to the Orbiter bus service.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A Board recommendations in this agenda for the Council to consider.


 

 

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1   Clarence/Dilworth Reserve – Picnic Table

The picnic table funded by the Community Board, has been installed at the Clarence/Dilworth Reserve. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2       Other partnerships with the community and organisations

5.2.1   Deans Avenue Drop-Ins

Staff have attended a number of drop-in sessions in the Deans Avenue area in collaboration with the City Mission and the New Zealand Fire Service.  These have taken the form of connecting with neighbours over a barbecue, coffee, baking and/or ice-creams.  

           

The Deans Avenue Precinct Society’s Annual General Meeting in mid-April 2019 was preceded by their usual community conversation. 

This year's conversation took the opportunity of allowing residents the space to take stock of the events of 15 March 2019 as it has affected them. 

An independent facilitator was used to give all residents the opportunity to participate in the conversation.

 

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

6.1       Women's Exercise Classes

Sport Canterbury has initiated a project targeted at refugee and migrant women providing an accessible weekly exercise class and a platform to connect and generate networks and friendships.

The project is a result of research conducted by Sport Canterbury and Christchurch Resettlement Services looking to establish more opportunities for refugee and migrant women to exercise in a safe, friendly and segregated environment. The women’s exercises classes will be aimed at providing a fun and safe place to exercise and a chance to meet and mix with other women living in Christchurch.  Riccarton was chosen as a location as there was a high number of refugee and migrant women residing in that ward area, so it would make it accessible to as many people as possible.

The Women's Exercise Classes will be launched on Saturday 18 May 2019 from 11am at Riccarton High School and will continue from 25 May at the Riccarton Baptist Church.

 

6.2       25th Anniversary – Community Patrol

Local Community Governance staff have been assisting the Hornby Community Patrol and three other city patrols to prepare for their 25th Anniversary celebrations to be held on Tuesday 18 June 2019 at 2pm at The Atrium, Hagley Avenue.  

 

6.3       Events - Report Back

6.3.1   Sockburn Park Community Fun Day

The Sockburn Community Fun Day was held on Sunday 24 March 2019 at Sockburn Park.

 Around 600 people enjoyed a range of activities including slippery slide, three-legged sack and egg and spoon races and an Easter egg scramble.

Delivered by the Westside Community Trust, the event bought together over 15 different local organisations who provided entertainment, free food and information displays as well as providing lots of prizes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.3.2   Community Pride Garden Awards 2019

The Board-hosted function for the Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Pride Garden Awards 2019 was successfully held on Monday 18 March 2019 at Riccarton Park.

 It was a very well attended occasion with 122 certificates being issued by Board members.

Guest speakers were Ron Andrew, President, Christchurch Beautifying Association, and Dr Antony Shadbolt, Biodiversity Team Leader, Christchurch City Council.

Trees for Canterbury generously contributed plants to make the event special for the award recipients.

Certificates were subsequently forwarded to those recipients unable to attend.

6.3.3   New Zealand Community Boards’ Conference 2019 - Award

At the New Zealand Community Boards’ Conference 2019, held from 11 to 13 April 2019 in New Plymouth, the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board won the New Zealand Community Boards’ Executive Committee Best Practice Award for Excellence in Engaging with your Community.

The category was for initiatives in which Community Boards have taken an innovative approach to consultation and engagement. The award-winning initiative submitted was for The Halswell Junior Council.

The Halswell Junior Council was initiated by Councillor Anne Galloway in March 2018 and involved three local school, Oaklands School, Aidanfield Christian School and Seven Oaks School.

 The Project began as a means to connect with young people in the area and as an opportunity to teach civics and participation at a local level. The Junior Council group identified and discussed issues that were relevant to them and, over a period of a year, identified solutions and proposed three projects that they could initiate themselves.

The projects included making a deputation to the Community Board about traffic speed and safety from a child's perspective; addressing child safety outside Aidanfield School; and creating a clean plastic-free environment in a local park.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


6.3.4   Ngā Puna Wai Sports Hub - Planting Afternoon

Around 50 people came together for a planting afternoon at Ngā Puna Wai on Friday 12 March 2019. The group was made up of Council and Sport Canterbury staff and volunteers from the sports clubs for whom Ngā Puna Wai is now their home.

Around 1,500 perennials were planted on the embankments of the new Rugby League field to complete the last section of the sports hub and draw this stage of the project to a close.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.3.5   Kidsfest

Kidsfest is a two week festival to be held from 6 to 20 of July 2019, designed especially for children up to thirteen years of age. 

Applications to be part of the festival are now closed, and the team is finalising the hundreds of events which will entertain children and families over the July school holiday period.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the Board’s 2017 -2019 Community Board Plan. 

7.2       This information update for the April 2019 quarter was reported on and received by the Board at its meeting on 30 April 2019.

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Matthew Pratt - Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Noela Letufuga - Support Officer

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

6.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/447939

Presenter(s):

Sally Buck, Chairperson
Arohanui Grace, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2019.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board held a meeting on 1 April 2019.  Decisions made under delegation were:

3.1       Parking Restrictions in:

·    Woodchester Avenue.

3.2       The approval to move a bus stop in Nayland Street, Sumner.

3.3       The approval of the Hagley Park – Winter School Sports Bus Parking.

3.4       The approval of contributory funding from the Board’s 2018/19 Youth Development Fund for youth to attend:

3.4.1   The Kids World Rugby Festival in Japan.

3.4.2   The Five Schools Educational and Cultural Exchange.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There were no Part A recommendations to the Council or its Committees from the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board in April 2019.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Community Facilities (updates and future plans)

5.1       Risingholme is on track for completion of earthquake repairs with a Mayoral opening planned for 5 June 2019 followed by a community day planned for 8 June 2019.

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

Public Forum

6.1       Ensors and Ōpāwa Road Crossing – Ms Norma Marriot and Mr Michael Elsworth addressed the Board raising safety concerns with the Board regarding the Ensors and Ōpāwa Road pedestrian crossing, and stated that in their opinion the crossing is not a pedestrian crossing but a gap in the road island.  The Board have agreed to have a site meeting with residents and staff.

6.2       Canterbury Polyfest 2019 was to have taken place in the Christchurch Red Zone on Saturday 16 March 2019 and was postponed owing to the recent tragedies.  Canterbury Polyfest 2019 will now be on 4 May 2019 at Canterbury Park.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Ōpāwa to Estuary) Project –

7.1       The Board held a workshop mid-March to determine an initial purpose and scope for this project.  The Board held a community workshop on 30 April 2019. (Attachment A)

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

Avebury House Community Trust Use of Grounds and Security Issues.

8.1       The Avebury House Community Trust has expressed concern that its ability to fully realise the potential of the buildings and the grounds to both provide community events and to offer the facilities for fund raising and social enterprise purposes is restricted because of the current guidelines for the use of the grounds.

8.1.1   At the Avebury House Christmas market all the gazebos had to be kept on the shingle driveway thereby limiting the number and scope of activities that could be accommodated and performers also had to be based on the roadway when it would have more convenient and pleasant for everyone if performers could be located on the lawn.

8.1.2   Between September 2018 and March 2019 seven weddings have been hosted on the lawn.  With different conditions of use the Trust believes many more weddings and other revenue generating events could be held at Avebury House. The Trust is concerned that the rules for the use of the Avebury House lawn are not reasonable or necessary for the protection of the asset for use by all members of the public. For instance the use water weights to erect marques would work adequately to protect the lawn for damage without an outright ban on the use of marques for events.

8.1.3   The Trust is also concerned with the number of petty crimes, arson and theft that have taken place over the last 18 months and would like to see improved security arrangements for the house.    

8.1.4   The Board has requested staff to meet with the Avebury House Trust on security, and outstanding maintenance issues.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Opawaho to Ihutai (Opawa to Estuary) Project - April 2019

18

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Arohanui Grace - Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

7.     Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/432058

Presenter(s):

Ali Jones, Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2019.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board held a meeting on 12 April 2019.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Approve the stopping of that part of the legal road adjacent to 110 Sawyers Arms Road shown as Section 1 on Plan C19676 appended to the report by using the process contained in Part 8 of the Public Works Act 1981 and, subject to the road stopping being successfully completed, to sell Section 1 as above to the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road on the basis that:

a.      Of the possible and practical purchasers of Section 1, the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road are the only parties that have indicated a desire to purchase Section 1, and

b.     All other owners adjoining Section 1 have consented to the stopping of Section 1 as legal road.

·   Approve that P60 Parking be installed on the northwest side of Malvern Street between a start 20m from Rutland Street to a point 85m from Rutland Street and that two P30 carparks be installed on the northeast side of Rutland Street between points 45m and 57m from Malvern Street with the restricted parking period for all the above applying Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm. The Board also requested that traffic enforcement undertake monitoring of the Rutland Street commercial shopping area and that traffic planning staff revisit the possibility of implementing a disabled park at some time in the future in the vicinity of the retail area.

·   Approval of the following grants:

·   $2,250 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to St Albans School towards the cost of Traffic Wardens and Patrols.

·   $1,370 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to to Te Ora Hou towards its Polyphony 2019 exhibition.

·   $5,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to Neighbourhood Trust towards the costs of the Parenting Week 2019 programme.

·   $1,800 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to Nor’west Brass Incorporated towards the cost of a promotional gazebo, teardrop flags and banners.

·   $300 from its 2018/19 Positive Youth Development Fund to the Papanui Toc H Athletics Club Incorporated towards the costs of Will Haigh and Walter Stevenson representing Canterbury at the Inter-Provincial Athletics Competition at Nga Puna Wai on 20-22 April 2019.

·   $600 from its 2018/19 Positive Youth Development Fund to Burnside High School towards the costs of Caleb Forsythe, Harrison Morrison and Tyler Thompson participating in the Spirit of Adventure Trophy Voyage in Auckland from 16 to 21 June 2019.

·   $500 from its 2018/19 Positive Youth Development Fund to Belfast School towards the costs of ten students’ attendance at the Papanui Youth Development Trust’s Leadership Training Course.

·   $5,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund towards the purchase and installation of a multi-purpose picnic table for the 10 Shirley Road site for the local community.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Road Stopping – 110 Sawyers Arms Road

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of Road Stopping – 110 Sawyers Arms Road will be considered by the Council at its meeting on 9 May 2019.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Other Partnerships with the community and organisations       

5.1       Shirley Community Trust 20th Anniversary

On Tuesday 26 March 2019 the Shirley Community Trust celebrated their 20 year anniversary. Approximately 70 people attended the event held at the MacFarlane Park Centre. Representatives of local Community organisations and churches mingled with those members of the Shirley Community Trust who were responsible for the Trust’s initial development and ongoing delivery of Community Development programs over the last two decades.

Speakers included Anne Kennedy, the original Manager, who outlined the first initial steps in the Trust’s development and delivery of flax roots community services.

The previous longstanding chair of the Shirley/ Papanui Community Board, Yvonne Palmer, outlined the strong relationship between the Trust and the Community Board in the early days and the continued development of the relationship which is ongoing to the present day.

The current Shirley Community Trust chair, Graeme Mitchell, spoke of the work that has been done alongside the community and the hope for the continued work into the future. Graeme also highlighted the excellent relationship between the Trust, the community, Lions International, the Papanui-Innes Community Board and Council staff around the relocation of the MacFarlane Park Centre on to the Park. Graeme took the opportunity to thank all the previous members of the Shirley Community Trust who had the vision to develop and deliver the community-led community development programmes that are now available in Shirley.

The event concluded with the cutting of the cake by some original members of the Trust and Yvonne Palmer (refer photo on previous page).

5.2       MacFarlane Park Murals

Local residents and the Shirley Village Project approached staff with the idea for a mural project in MacFarlane Park South. This park is a major thoroughfare for students getting to and from school.

Students from MacFarlane Park Kidsfirst Kindergarten, Shirley Primary and Shirley Intermediate will work on panels that will be fixed into the park along the fence line to activate and brighten the space.

Shirley Intermediate’s concept for their artwork is that they want it to be interactive, for example, find a word or object hidden in the mural. 

Shirley Primary, sadly, has families within their school community affected by the tragic events of 15 March 2019 so the concept for their artwork would be about accepting our differences and unity.

Community Facilities (updates and future plans)     

5.3       St Albans Community Facility

This project is currently in the design and consenting phase. Final floor plan and artist’s impressions of the Colombo Street and Caledonian Road frontages were published in the 22 March area report.

5.4       10 Shirley Road

At its meeting on 28 March 2019 the Christchurch City Council approved

“a grant of $87,850 from the 2018/19 Capital Endowment Fund to the Parks Unit for a modular pump track initially located at the Shirley Community Reserve, and required reporting to be submitted 12 months following payment or once the pump track is operational, whichever comes first.”

Infrastructure projects underway  

5.5       Hills Road Reseal (circulated 22 Mar 2019)

An asphalt reseal will be carried out on Hills Road, north of the Warrington Street/Shirley Road intersection up to Acheson Street, in the next month, i.e. planned to be complete before end of April, subject to weather. Work will be undertaken by City Care through our North Road Maintenance contract.

A Work Notice will be dropped to those that live immediately adjacent to the affected area in advance of the works, together with advance signage at the roadside to indicate planned start/finish dates.

The image (see right) gives an indication of the limits of this work (the dark blue line between the yellow highlighted area).

 

 

It is expected this work to be undertaken within a week. The work will be undertaken to minimise the impact to traffic disruption vs the impact on home owners by working at night; specific details are being worked through with CTOC at present.

5.6       Richmond Road Repair Update

The Council Transport Unit is looking to continue with the repairs to Stapletons Road and Randall Street. As part of the process they are required to consult with the community. There has been quite extensive consultation on the proposals but this will be more specific and be limited to the residents in the areas to be worked in. The proposed start of the Stapletons section is straight after the Easter break. Works will then proceed down Stapletons and back along Randall and the completion of the intersection with Petrie. This will complete the first 5 sections of the priority list.

5.7       Belfast Cemetery Extension

This project is for the development of the extension to Belfast Cemetery. The works included within the consent are all the new roads, paths, lawns, drainage, landscape, monumental beams and alterations to the toilet water and sewer system.

Approximately 500 new plots have been established in the extension works to date. A new children's area has also been established.

Works are now underway for another section of road layout to link the extension to the entrance.

5.8       Paddington Reserve Playground Renewal and Basketball Hoop

This was noted in the 22 March 2019 area report as out for consultation. Once the consultation has closed on 7 April, the results will be analysed and reported to the Board to determine the appropriate next steps.

5.9       Sabina Playground – Play Space Renewal

This project is still in the initial stages. Funding is not available until 2020.

5.10    St Albans Skate Park Extension

Project: To extend the existing skate facility to meet the current needs of the users.

The project is at a very early stage, holding conversations with the community on their preferences and priorities for this extension.

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

Projects        

6.1       Picnic Table – 10 Shirley Road Site

At its meeting on 8 March the Board considered options for a picnic table for the 10 Shirley Road site. This was the result of a resident from the Richmond area speaking to the Community Board at the public forum on 9 November 2018 regarding the state of the site and requesting site maintenance and the addition of amenities such as a picnic table to promote the community use of the site.

The Board considered Options 1-2 and asked for a quote for Option 3 which had not been priced at that time. The Board also suggested that a simple picnic table secured by a chain and block of concrete embedded in the ground might well be the most cost-effective and practical answer in the meantime.

Option 1 - Portland Picnic Set

Option 2 – Sandringham Picnic Set

Item

Cost

Item

Cost

Portland

2,095

Sandringham

2,895

Pad and Installation

 (approx.) 1,500

Pad and Installation

(approx.) 1,500

Total Approx. Cost

$3,595

Total Approx. Cost

$4,395

 

Option 3 – Multi-Purpose Concrete Table

Option 4 – Wooden Picnic Table

Item

Cost

Item

Cost

M/P Concrete Table

3,175

Picnic Table

(Mitre 10) $104

Concrete Benches x2

($449 each)  $898

 

 

Pad and Installation

 (approx.) 1,500

Pad and Installation

(approx.) 1,500

Total Approx. Cost

$5,573

Total Approx. Cost

$1,604

 

Option 3 was suggested by staff as a way of adding value to a community space with a multi-purpose amenity. Table tennis is fun and promotes a healthy sense of competition for the youth of the area and social togetherness for the community in a local green space. With the addition of a couple of concrete benches on either side which do not interfere with the game, the table can be used for community gatherings.

This project could be viewed as an opportunity for a partnership with the local community who could help with fundraising and the decoration of the table (see right) which in turn discourages graffiti and engenders a spirit of community ownership.

Option 4 with the suggested chain and concrete block method of fastening it to the site is not considered to be sufficiently secure and would still require a base pad to prevent weed growth and enable easy mowing of the site.

The staff recommended that the Board fund one of the options presented (preferably 1, 2 or 3) to be placed on the 10 Shirley Road site for the use of the local community as initially raised by a local resident in December 2018.

The Board decided to fund the multi-purpose table only (Option 3) and that the benches could be added separately later should it be thought necessary to reduce the initial cost.

Events Report Back

6.2       Nil to report. 

Other Matters of Interest         

6.3       Parks Update – Papanui-Innes wards

6.3.1   General

High rainfall at the start of the year changed to long hot, dry day conditions in February and early March. Parks programmed extra mowing to address the rapid growth which during February changed to extreme fire risk conditions. Resources where allocated to informal turf areas to mitigate fire risk.

Water conservation is implemented throughout the city which also impacted on parks with most urban irrigation systems shut down. Sports parks reduced to minimal water apart from the sand carpet fields.

Gardening Crews have begun there annual parks clean –up. Firm and dry conditions allow easy access with vehicles and equipment.

6.3.2   Sports Parks

March is the beginning of winter sports field set out and line marking ready for 1st April for club matches to begin.

The winter sport renovation programme is now underway which involves work on under sowing, weed control, deep compaction relief and topdressing to remediate turf damage. I have attached the assessment report for more detail below. The programme is envisaged to be complete end of April.

Our urban rangers have been busy setting up activities with community volunteers for the up and coming planting season.

6.3.3   Capital Works

·     St Albans Park

The sand fields have just come into the parks maintenance contract. The playground area was tidied up with a splash of paint and some resurfacing ready for the Park re-opening event which was held on 31st March.

 

St Albans Park – new surface under the pergola within playground

 

Repaint of the playground wall

There is still more work to be undertaken with the removal of the dead hedge caused by waterlogging.

·     QE11 Drive Retention Basin

The Retention Basin has undergone its first practical completion period. Approximately 20,000 riparian plants are growing well surrounding the basins. Photos below.

 

 

 New Retention Basin inspection adjacent to #280 QEII Drive

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan

7.1       The Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan can be found at the following link:

Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board Plan

7.2       The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the 2017–2019 Community Board Plan.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest

8.1       Nil to report.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Lyssa Aves - Governance Support Officer

Elizabeth Hovell - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Christine Lane - Manager Community Governance, Papanui-Innes

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

8.     Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/424902

Presenter(s):

Karolin Potter, Community Board Chairperson
Melanie Coker, Community Board Deputy Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board report for April 2019.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Board held a meeting on 2 April 2019.  Decisions made under delegation at that meeting were:

·   Allocating $400 from its 2019/20 Communicating with Communities fund for the purchase of floral wreaths to be laid at Sydenham Cemetery and at the Returned Servicemen Association’s dawn Service at Victoria Park as part of the Board’s ANZAC Day Commemoration.

·   Approving a grant of $2,000 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to the Spreydon Youth Community Trust towards the Weekly Youth Programme.

·   Nominating Community Awards for $6,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Edible Garden Awards for $3,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Neighbourhood Week – Let's get together this summer for $4,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Off the Ground Fund for $2,500 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Youth Achievement and Development Scheme for $9,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Communicating with the Community for $3,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Community Events for $8,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

·   Nominating Community Events Fund Project for $8,000 as a Board project to be considered for funding from the Board’s 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund.

 

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There were no Part A recommendations from the Board to the Council in April 2019.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       Coronation Reserve development

Re-vegetation planting for hillside stabilisation and track construction is proposed. Preparation for planting in winter 2019 is in progress.

5.2       Hoon Hay Park basketball court area and lighting project

This project is for the installation of new lighting to the Basketball Court area at Hoon Hay Park, a new BBQ and seating.  The lighting has been completed with the remaining work to be completed prior to a planned opening on 10 May 2019.

 

5.3       Manuka cottage Capital Endowment Fund project

This project for the construction of a new community facility on Cornelius O'Connor Reserve has met with a number of delays.  A contract for construction has now been entered with the contractor.  Design details are being finalised in preparation to lodging the Building Consent Application, with construction scheduled to start in May 2019.


 

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

6.1       Accessibility at South Library

Concerns raised about the height of the self-issue kiosks at South Library being inaccessible to those in wheelchairs are to be addressed.  Unfortunately the self-issue kiosks were constructed at this facility to the incorrect height.  An extension is to be added on the end of the current issues bench to allow one self- issue point to be at the New Zealand Standard accessible height.  This solution is to be implemented without delay.

 

 

6.2       ANZAC Day Commemoration

Security concerns led to the cancellation of the Board’s local ANZAC Day commemoration this year.  Wreaths from the Board were nevertheless laid at the Sydenham Cemetery and at Victoria Park.

 

    

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The latest monitoring report on the Community Board Plan is currently being prepared and will be considered by the Board in June 2019.


 

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       Youth Achievement and Development Scheme

The Board continues to be impressed by the calibre of the young people applying for grants from its Youth Achievement and Development Scheme and by the diversity of recreational pursuits that they are undertaking.  Applications come from those pursuing academic, sporting cultural and other fields.  Many of the applicants are achieving and excelling in more than one area.  The Board is delighted to be able to make a grant to assist these young people further their ambitions or achieve their goals.  Many of the applicants return to the Board to show their appreciation for the grant and to report on their ventures.  Recently presentations were received from:

Evelyn Ponga who had received a grant towards her attendance at the Big Sing 2018 National Choir competition 29 August to 2 September 2018 in Wellington as part of the Villa Maria College Con Brio choir.  Evelyn was also awarded a grant to attend the 2017 “Big Sing”. 

Evelyn thanked the Board for the grant it made towards her participation.  She was pleased to report that the Villa Maria Choir had received a silver award at the competition.

At the end of her presentation Evelyn sang to the Board accompanied by friend Amelia.

Chloe Hurst is 12 years old and received a Board grant to attend the Australian Scout Jamboree 2019 in Adelaide from January 4 to January 14 2019.  Chloe made a presentation to the Board outlining her experiences at the Jamboree.  She also presented a slideshow of photographs showing the trip and full of interesting details such as the huge scorpion uncovered under one tent when it was packed away.  Chloe expressed her thanks to the Board for the contribution it made towards her attendance at the Jamboree.

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Faye Collins - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Christopher Turner-Bullock - Manager Community Governance, Spreydon-Cashmere

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

9.     Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/442144

Presenter(s):

Pam Richardson - Community Board Chairperson
Joan Blatchford - Community Governance Manager
Penelope Goldstone - Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2019.

2.         Consider a holistic, co-ordinated approach to the Banks Peninsula area including reference to, but not limited to, recreation, ecology and visitation.

 

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Community Board held meetings on 1 April and 15 April.  Decisions made under delegation were:              

·   Board Submissions

The Board agreed to make a submission in support of proposed speed reductions in Council’s Summit Road Speed Review.

The Board agreed to make a submission on the proposal by Peninsula Air Limited for a waterdrome at Lyttelton Harbour, after seeking further information on the proposal.

The Board approved its submission on the Christchurch City Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2019/20 and endorsed the submissions from Cass Bay and Diamond Harbour Reserve Management Committees.

·   Panel and Committee Restructure

The Board approved the restructure of the Akaroa Design and Appearance Advisory Committee from a committee of the Board to a subordinate decision making body of the Board with Terms of Reference to reflect its current functions.

The Board confirmed the structure for the Lyttelton Design Review Panel and adopted the amended Terms of Reference as at 15 April 2019.

·   Misty Peaks and Te Oka Reserve Management Plans

The Board approved the Misty Peaks Reserve Management Plan 2018 and the Te Oka Reserve Management Plan 2018.

As part of its deliberations, the Hearings Panel that considered submissions on the two plans and made a recommendation to the Board, suggested that “consideration may be given as to where such reserves as Misty Peaks Reserve and Te Oka Reserve fit into the wider visitor and recreation planning in future integrated destination planning for Banks Peninsula”.  

The Hearings Panel then included a request to the Council in its recommendation to the Board – to consider a holistic, co-ordinated approach to the Banks Peninsula area including reference to, but not limited to, recreation, ecology and visitation”.  The Board approved that request as part of its resolution to adopt the Reserve Management Plans.  This approach aligns with the Board’s objectives on visitor planning for Banks Peninsula, as highlighted in its submission to the Draft Annual Plan and its outcomes in the Community Board Plan. 

·   Board Funding

The Board approved a grant of $1,500 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to Charteris Bay Yacht Club towards the Open Fleet and Away Regattas Project.

The Board has established a Local Response Fund to be allocated directly from its Discretionary Response Fund, with delegated authority given to three Board members.

The Board has approved that its Youth Development Fund allocations be approved under delegated authority given to three Board members.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       Property Review Process

The Board’s consideration and recommendation of the Property Review Process was considered by the Council at its meeting on 9 May 2019.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

Akaroa Wharf

5.1       The Board was briefed on the key findings of the conservation plan for Akaroa Wharf, and provided feedback on the consultation plan for the wharf renewal.  The Board suggested that the feedback sought include input from school children and that staff make any technical reports publicly available.

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

Public Forum, Deputations and Correspondence     

6.1       Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee

6.1.1      Jenny Healey spoke on behalf of the Cass Bay Reserve Management Committee regarding its submission on the Draft Annual Plan.  She stressed the Committee’s belief that playgrounds should provide “equitable access” for all children.

Committee and Working Party Matters

6.2       Reserve Management Committees

The Board received minutes from Reserve Management Committee meetings as follows:

-      Duvauchelle Reserve Management Committee – 15 October 2018, 19 November 2018, 17 December 2018, 21 January 2019 and 18 February 2019.

-      Okains Bay Reserve Management Committee – 5 February 2019

-      Lyttelton Reserve Management Committee – 11 March 2019 

-      Robinsons Bay Reserve Management Committee – 25 March 2019

6.3       Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee

The Board received the minutes from the Akaroa Museum Advisory Committee meeting of 27 March 2019.

 

6.4       Akaroa Treated Wastewater Reuse Options Working Party

Meetings of the Akaroa Treated Wastewater Reuse Options Working Party have been held on 11 April and 29 April.

Briefings

6.5       Lyttelton Port Company

Staff from the Lyttelton Port Company (LPC) presented an update to the Board on port activities including the cruise berth, an upgrade to the oil berth, a new tug, the reclamation development and the monitoring of effects on Hector’s Dolphins from the pile driving for the cruise ship berth.

6.6       Cruise Ship Action Group

The Board received a briefing from the Cruise Ship Action Group which is a working group of staff from the Council, Environment Canterbury and ChristchurchNZ.  The group has no decision making responsibilities, but exists to best coordinate the activities of the respective organisations.  Its terms of reference are primarily focused on short to medium term actions around cruise ship visits, including navigational safety, Resource Management Act issues, strategic leadership and relationships with cruise operators, as well as operational issues and infrastructure.

6.7       Feasibility Study: Okains Bay Community Centre

The Board received an update on the Feasibility Study for the Okains Bay Community Centre and heard that consultation is underway.

6.8       Akaroa Town Seawall Repairs

The Board received a briefing on the beginning of work to repair seawalls on Beach Road in Akaroa, which would initially see mortar repair, scour protection and rock toe and void filling for a 130 metre length.

6.9       Godley House Land Use

Staff updated the Board on the process for dealing with the current land status of the Godley House site and the consultation with the local community of Diamond Harbour regarding the possible future use of the land.  A report will come to the Board in May/June recommending that the Board approve an updated draft Stoddart Point and Coastal Cliffs Reserves Management Plan for consultation.

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Community Board Plan for 2017/19 is available at the following link: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Community-Boards/PDF-Banks-Peninsula-Community-Board-Plan-2017-2019-Adopted-31-July-20172.pdf

7.2       The next six monthly progress report will be reported to the Board following 30 June 2019.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       Illegal Tracks in Urumau Reserve

The Board noted that illegal tracks in Urumau Reserve, and the destruction of plantings, appear to be an ongoing issue even though the Board’s resolution on the Urumau Reserve Development Plan had specifically stated that where tracks existed that were not shown on the adopted plan, that staff be asked to close them.

The Board requested that Parks staff hold a discussion with Board members and the Chairperson of the Lyttelton Reserves Management Committee regarding the ongoing issue of illegal tracks in Urumau Reserve and how they can be closed.

8.2       Akaroa Maintenance

The Board noted the improvements in maintenance around Akaroa and surrounds and thanked staff and contractors for their ongoing work to improve the appearance of the town.

8.3       Akaroa Multi Sports Body

The Board has asked staff to provide an outline for the process, as well as a timeline, to respond to the proposal received by the Board to recreate a multi sports body to redevelop the croquet, tennis and netball area in Akaroa.

8.4       Temporary Toilets – Resource Consent

The Board has requested information from staff on the retrospective resource consent required for the temporary toilets on the Britomart Reserve, specifically confirmation that the consent is no longer required because the toilets have been removed.

8.5       Project Lyttelton Recreation Centre Partnership Project

The Board has heard that good progress has been made on this project and after a 90 day period, the agreement will be signed by both parties.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Carter - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Joan Blatchford - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Lyttelton

Penelope Goldstone - Manager Community Governance, Banks Peninsula/Akaroa

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

10.   Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board Report to Council

Reference:

19/407184

Presenter(s):

Kim Money, Chairperson Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2019.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

The Coastal-Burwood Community Board held meetings on 1 and 15 April.  Decisions made under delegation were, the Board:

·   Determined the locations for ANZAC wreath laying.

·   Approved the proposed design for New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements for the length of Marine Parade between Hawke Street and Beresford Street.

·   Approved a grant of $1,500 from its 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund to the Chisnallwood Intermediate School towards the Chisnallwood Intermediate Graduate Jazz Band Trip to Music in the Summer Air – Shanghai Youth Summer Music Camp 2019 to enable six young people to attend.

·   Approved a grant of $3,500 from its 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund to the Neighbourhood Trust towards the costs of delivering Parenting Week.

·   Approved a grant of $6,000 from its 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Board’s Community Networking/ Thank You Event.

·   Approved a grant of $500 from its 2018/19 Youth Development Fund to a young person to enable attendance at the Kids World Rugby Festival in Yokohama Japan from 17 April to 23 April 2019.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

The following reports presenting Part A recommendations from the Board are included in this agenda for Council consideration:

4.1       New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5

                The Board’s consideration and recommendation of New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements              A2, A4, A5 will be considered by the Council at today’s meeting 9 May 2019.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1       No updates to report.


 

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

6.1       ANZAC Day Ceremonies

The Board laid wreaths on ANZAC Day in ward ceremonies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The Board approved the Coastal-Burwood Community Board Plan for 2017-19 on 16 October 2017.  The Plan can be found at the following link: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Community-Boards/Coastal-Burwood-Community-Board-Plan-2017-19.pdf

7.2       The Board’s ongoing decisions are being included as measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the 2017 – 2019 Community Board Plan.

8.   Community Board Matters of Interest  

8.1       General Maintenance in New Brighton

8.1.1   North and South Pier Ramps Rubbish Bins
The Board has noted that the most effective rubbish bin on, or close to, the coast, do not have an open top to avoid seagull access. The Board has requested that new bins that are installed in or close to the coast have covered lids or are solar powered, waste-compacting bins.

8.1.2   Shaw Avenue Public Toilet Garden
The Board has requested that staff consider undertaking maintenance and enhancement work on the Shaw Avenue public toilet gardens and pathways, including lifting of the Ngaio tree, weed removal and plantings in the garden beds.  

8.2       Dog control signage

Following a site visit with Dog Control staff and a Board representative, it was agreed that dog control signage on the beach areas within the Coastal ward will be improved with the aim of raising public awareness of requirements for dogs in beach areas.

 

8.3       Mairehau Road

In response to a request from the Board, staff are investigating the possibility of exchanging Chadbury Street re-surfacing, scheduled for 2019/2020, for the carriage-way re-surfacing of Mairehau Road between Daytona Place and Medina Crescent (part of which is not due until 2020/2021) in for 2019/2020.

8.4       Drainage Issues - Cygnet St storm water outfall to ocean

On 15 April 2019 staff spoke to the Board on drainage issues on Cygnet Street and stormwater outfall to the ocean.  They spoke of short term maintenance repair measures planned for winter.  They advised the first draft design for a groyne option is currently in review.

8.5       Bexley Park Development

The development of Bexley Park this financial year comprises driveway resealing, dog park car park development, and landscaping. These are close to being tendered.

Staff are working to undertake repairs up of all the pot holes as an interim measure until consents are gained.

Key issues that need consents are around the volumes of soil that will be disturbed during work, and the issue of creating the right fall to move water away from the drive.

There is also a requirement to undertake soil testing and produce a Site Management Plan for any work in a Hazardous Activities and Industries List (HAIL) site.

 

8.6       Southshore Red Zone - Land Information New Zealand

The Board sought information from Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) on the possibility of installing signage prohibiting motorcycles on the red zone portion of Southshore.


LINZ has signage in place as shown in the images below. The option available to reinforce this would be to either prohibit all access or have styles at the access points – those options would not be recommended by LINZ as they would restrict access to bikes, buggies and less mobile residents.

 

LINZ initially had limited signs in place but in response to discussions with the community, additional signage was put in place. LINZ had requested the Board’s feedback on the current approach taken. 

As the result of a LINZ Officer attending the Board’s meeting on 1 April 2019 and hearing the request that the signage at Plover Street include “Authorised Vehicles Only”, LINZ installed the signage shown below on 2 April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plover Street

 

8.7       Styx Water Quality presentation

Marlese Fairgray from Styx Living Laboratory Trust presented to the Board on the Styx Youth Program adapted for high school students.  The future aim is to collaborate with schools, increase participant numbers, generate meaningful results, and educate more young people about the state of our city’s waterways.

8.8       Recreate

Renew Brighton with the support from a number of people and organisations, has taken the opportunity to help enhance the Brighton Mall by occupying an empty shop space attached to Countdown supermarket at 40 Brighton Mall.  

Te Kura Tawhito (The Old School), took on the project to enhance the space as a place for artists to display their creations, gain public recognition and potentially sell their work. It opened at the beginning of February.

Christchurch City Council, Development Christchurch Limited, Renew Brighton, residents of Te Kura Tawhito, Brighton businesses, residents, plus many others have all contributed funding and/or time and services to help make Recreate happen. Interest has been shown in Recreate by the art world outside of Brighton. Staff from Ilam School of Fine Arts and The Physics Room have visited Recreate and are looking at ways to collaborate.

On average 80 to 100 people visit Recreate every Saturday. It is also open Friday and Sunday lunch time. Local artists and artisans, are contacting recreate to enquire about displaying their work. Recreate currently represents 10 artists and groups from Te Kura Tawhiti and 8 guest artists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Authors

Ann Furlong - Support Officer

Jo Wells - Manager Community Governance, Coastal-Burwood

Peter Croucher - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

11.   Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Report to Council - April 2019

Reference:

19/446870

Presenter(s):

Sam MacDonald, Community Board Chairperson

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with an overview of Part A matters requiring a Council decision and of initiatives and issues considered by the Community Board.

2.   Community Board Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Receive the Community Board report for April 2019.

3.   Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

3.1       The Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board held meetings on 1 April and 15 April 2019.  Decisions made under delegation were:

·   Greers Road / Memorial Avenue Intersection – Proposed Traffic Management Improvements:  The Board resolved to adopt Option 2 of the staff report which was to do nothing. Staff are continuing to investigate options for safety improvement at this intersection.

·   Cam Place (Pasadena Reserve) – Request for Removal of Street Tree(s):  The Board resolved to approve the removal of street tree(s) from Cam Place/Pasadena Reserve, subject to an application being made for a resource consent (Option 2).

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Discretionary Response Fund Applications:  The Board approved funding totalling $4,700 to the Neighbourhood Trust towards the costs of Parenting Week and the Nor'West Brass Incorporated towards the purchase of a promotional gazebo, teardrop flags and banners.

·   Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Youth Development Fund Applications:  The Board approved funding totalling $2,100 towards 14 young people attending various events in Japan, Auckland, Invercargill and Christchurch.

·   Draft Annual Plan 2019-2020:  The Board resolved to receive for record purposes, the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board submission on the Christchurch City Council’s Draft Annual Plan 2019-2020.

·   Emergency Response Fund:  The Board resolved to establish an Emergency Response Fund as a result of the events on 15 March 2019 and allocate $5,000 from their 2018-19 Discretionary Response Fund towards local projects and initiatives that promote the five essential elements of response and recovery.

·   Waimairi Road and Greers Road – Proposed Bus Stops:  The Board resolved that a Joint Extraordinary Meeting of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board and the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board be held on Tuesday, 30 April 2019 at 6pm in the Hao Room, Te Hapua: Halswell Centre, 341 Halswell Road, to consider a report on Waimairi Road and Greers Road - Proposed Bus Stops.

4.   Part A Recommendations to Council

There are no Part A Board recommendations in this agenda for the Council's consideration.

5.   Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1          Community Board Funding

5.1.1   Applications for the Board's 2019-20 Strengthening Communities Fund closed on 14 April 2019.  Forty-four applications have been received, requesting a total of $767,742.  The Board will consider applications for funding at its meeting on 12 August 2019.

5.1.2   On 1 April 2019, the Board established an Emergency Response Fund for groups to access support towards projects which promote community resilience and wellbeing following the 15 March attacks.  To date, two applications have been approved:

·    Bryndwr Community Garden Inc – Community BBQ and Picnic at Morley Reserve - $650

·    The Village Community Centre – Food parcels for affected families at Burnside Primary School - $400

5.1.3   On 4 February 2019, the Board approved $5,000 to the Bishopdale MenzShed towards the purchase and installation of a dust extraction system at their site in Kendal Ave.  A number of members were experiencing breathing difficulties due to the dust and wood particles being produced by their work.  The system has now been installed and is making a huge difference.

           

 

5.2          Ōrauwhata: Bishopdale Library and Community Centre

5.2.1   The Ōrauwhata: Bishopdale Library and Community Centre will be temporarily closed from the end of Thursday 18 April 2019 for the flooring in the foyer to be repaired. 

5.2.2   The closure has been timed to coincide with the Easter and Anzac Day breaks as the library would have been closed for three days over this period due to public holidays.

5.2.3   The Ōrauwhata: Bishopdale library and Community Centre will reopen on Monday 29 April 2019.


 

5.3       Jeffreys Reserve Replacement Water Tank

5.3.1   The project manager has confirmed the preliminary design phase is taking longer than expected as the project team sorts out the best way to manage the space constraints on site.

 

5.3.2   The timing of construction is now planned as:

·    Stage 1 - Early May 2019 – work starts on raising one well head to remove current chlorination

·    Stage 2 - July/August 2019 – start of main construction expected to take 8-10 months and be completed by May 2020 Preliminary design is now expected to be complete by the end of May 2019. 

5.3.3   Once confirmed, staff will arrange a project information session.

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

6.1       Elmwood Park – Old Boys Collegians Cricket Club

6.1.1   Feedback is sought regarding a new lease/license to the Old Boys Collegians Cricket Club for a new pavilion building on Elmwood Park and practise nets.

6.1.2   The Club’s previous lease for a pavilion building on Elmwood Park has reached final expiry, therefore an entirely new lease approval process is now required for the rebuild of the facilities on the Park.   The club also proposes to relocate its practise nets away from the main pedestrian path through the park.

6.1.3   Consultation is open until 5pm on Monday, 13 May 2019.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

7.   Progress Report Against the Community Board Plan 

7.1       The next summary of measures against the Outcomes and Priorities contained in the Community Board Plan will be presented to the Board at its 1 July 2019 meeting.

 

 

Attachments

There are no attachments to this report.

 

Signatories

Author

Bronwyn Frost - Support Officer

Approved By

Maryanne Lomax - Manager Community Governance, Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

Report from Papanui-Innes Community Board  – 12 April 2019

 

12.   Road Stopping - 110 Sawyers Arms Road

Reference:

19/449366

Presenter(s):

Tom Lennon, Property Consultant - Facilities, Property and Planning

 

 

1. Papanui-Innes Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

That the Council:

1.         Pursuant to section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 to depart from the Road Stopping Policy 2009 to authorise the stopping of that part of the legal road adjacent to 110 Sawyers Arms Road (shown as Section 1 on Plan C19676 prepared by Davie Lovell –Smith and dated October 2018) by using the process contained in Part 8 of the Public Works Act 1981.

2.         Note that:

a.         This decision is inconsistent with the Road Stopping Policy 2009;

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the Road Stopping Policy 2009 requires that the Section 1 be stopped using the Local Government Act 2002 road stopping process;

c.         There is no intention to amend the Road Stopping Policy 2009 to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique "one-off" circumstances which are unlikely to be repeated.

3.         Pursuant to Part 8 of the Public Works Act 1981, to stop Section 1 as legal road;

4.         Subject to the road stopping being successfully completed, to sell Section 1 showing on the attached to the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road for the sum of $48,500 plus GST (if any) on the basis that:

a.         Of the possible and practical purchasers of Section 1 the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road are the only parties that have indicated a desire to purchase Section 1, and

b.         All other owners adjoining Section 1 have consented to the stopping of Section 1 as legal road;

5.         To depart from the policy to "publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise" to authorise the sale of Section 1 to the owners of Sawyers Arms Road, noting as follows:

a.         This decision is inconsistent with the policy to "publicly tender properties for sale …";

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the policy requires the Council to "publicly tender properties for sale …";

c.         There is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique "one-off" circumstances which are unlikely to be repeated.

6.         To delegate to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take all necessary steps and to enter into all necessary documents on behalf of the Council as he shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Road Stopping - 110 Sawyers Arms Road

49

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A

59

b

Attachment B - Process Matters

60

 

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

Road Stopping - 110 Sawyers Arms Road

Reference:

19/172119

Presenter(s):

Tom Lennon, Property Consultant

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       This report seeks to address a situation relating to a large portion of unformed road adjacent to 110 Sawyers Arms Road which the neighbouring landowner has applied to have stopped.

1.2       Following discussions with the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road a conditional agreement has been reached for the stopping and sale of the unformed road to them. This report sets out the issues and options and seeks resolutions to support and give effect to that solution.

Origin of Report

1.3       This report staff generated to deal with a road stopping application and is submitted to the Community Board for resolutions on the issues set out herein as there is no delegation to depart from Policy.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined because this project only affects the applicant’s property as they are the only possible and feasible buyers of the stopped road. The owners of the properties neighbouring the applicants land have provided separate written consent.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waipapa/Papanui-Innes Community Board recommends that the Council passes the following resolutions:

1.         Pursuant to section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 to depart from the Road Stopping Policy 2009 to authorise the stopping of that part of the legal road adjacent to 110 Sawyers Arms Road (shown as Section 1 on Plan C19676 prepared by Davie Lovell –Smith and dated October 2018) by using the process contained in Part 8 of the Public Works Act 1981.

2.         Note that:

a.         This decision is inconsistent with the Road Stopping Policy 2009;

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the Road Stopping Policy 2009 requires that the Section 1 be stopped using the Local Government Act 2002 road stopping process;

c.         There is no intention to amend the Road Stopping Policy 2009 to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique "one-off" circumstances which are unlikely to be repeated.

3.         Pursuant to Part 8 of the Public Works Act 1981, to stop Section 1 as legal road;

 

4.         Subject to the road stopping being successfully completed, to sell Section 1 showing on the attached to the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road for the sum of $48,500 plus GST (if any) on the basis that:

a.         Of the possible and practical purchasers of Section 1 the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road are the only parties that have indicated a desire to purchase Section 1, and

b.         All other owners adjoining Section 1 have consented to the stopping of Section 1 as legal road;

5.         To depart from the policy to "publicly tender properties for sale unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise" to authorise the sale of Section 1 to the owners of Sawyers Arms Road, noting as follows:

a.         This decision is inconsistent with the policy to "publicly tender properties for sale …";

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the policy requires the Council to "publicly tender properties for sale …";

c.         There is no intention to amend the policy to accommodate this decision as this decision involves unique "one-off" circumstances which are unlikely to be repeated.

6.         To delegate to the Property Consultancy Manager the authority to take all necessary steps and to enter into all necessary documents on behalf of the Council as he shall consider necessary or desirable to give effect to the above resolutions.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Depart from Council policy and stop the road using the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) procedure, and subsequently dispose of the land unilaterally to the adjoining owner (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Stop the road using the Local Government Act 1974 (LGA)procedure, and subsequently dispose of the land

·     Option 3 – Do not stop the road

4.1       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.1.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Is less costly for the applicant.

·     Is relatively simple and quick.

·     The end result achieves the same outcome as Option 2 albeit using a different process.

·     Reflects the low level of significance as already determined using the Councils Significance Assessment template.

·     Regulatory checks and balances are in place because the PWA process requires approval from the Minister of Lands.

4.1.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     None

4.2       Given that the portion of unformed road is not required for roading or other public works purposes, and that the one other adjoining owner has consented to the proposed road stopping and sale, it is the view of Officers that the most pragmatic solution to remedying this situation is to commence the road stopping pursuant to the PWA.

4.3       Alternative mechanisms for achieving legal occupation such as a Licence to Occupy were not considered feasible due to Council not favouring licences for permanent occupation of legal road and would also prevent the applicant committing to the long term enhancements and improvements they are intending to undertake once the land is purchased.

 

5.   Context/Background

5.1       An application has been received by the Owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road to stop a portion of road adjoining their property as identified in the attached diagram (Attachment A).

5.2       The subject portion of unformed road is significant in size and has proven problematic for an extended period of time for the Council in terms of ongoing maintenance and controlling illegal carparking

5.3       An opportunity exists to stop and sell the portion of unformed road to the adjoining owners who have confirmed their commitment to undertake landscaping improvements and the formalisation of a carparking area over the stopped road

5.4       Once the subject portion of road is stopped and sold to the adjoining owners, Council will no longer be responsible the ongoing maintenance of this area.

5.5       The road stopping application has been assessed by the Transport Unit against the criteria in the Councils Road Stopping Policy (Attachment B1), and all the criteria have been considered.

5.6       The proposed road stopping does not contradict any of the criteria in Attachment 1 and therefore the application could proceed.

5.7       The Community Board would be responsible for decision making for this decision in normal circumstances.  This report recommends a departure from policy recognising special circumstances, which requires a Council decision.  As one of the alternative options is the use of standard processes, it is appropriate for the Community Board to form the initial view in this case.

5.8       The value of the road to be stopped has been assessed by a competent independent registered valuer appointed by Council.

6.   Discussion

6.1       Council has the choice of two processes for stopping roads.  These processes, the LGA and PWA processes, are described in Attachment B2.

6.2       As there are two adjoining property owners the Policy requires that the statutory process which shall be used to seek to stop the road is the LGA.

6.3       In this particular scenario the only other adjoining owner (108 Sawyers Arms Road) have provided their written consent to the road stopping.

6.4       The LGA processes is likely to take significantly more time and be more expensive more than the PWA process. 

6.5       Council staff therefore consider that there are compelling reasons to depart from Policy and utilise the process set out within the PWA

6.6       The PWA process is the most appropriate method to use when the public’s ability to utilise the land is not going to be materially affected.

6.7       As the only other adjoining owner has consented to the road stopping proceeding, Council staff are of the opinion that the PWA is the most appropriate method in this scenario.

6.8       This process (PWA) can only be used should Council resolve to depart from Policy.

6.9       Council has the ability to depart from Policy in accordance with section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 – Identification of inconsistent decisions.  

6.10    In making a decision to depart from policy the Council must:

6.10.1 Identify the inconsistency.

6.10.2 The reasons for the inconsistency.

6.10.3 Consider whether the departure gives rise to any intention or requirement of the local authority to amend the policy or plan to accommodate the decision. In this instance this proposal is to deal with a one off exception and it is therefore not necessary to consider any changes to the Policy.

6.11    In this instance it is proposed to depart from the Councils Road Stopping Policy the associated delegations and Council Property Disposal Policy i.e.:

6.11.1 The policy prescribes that in the normal course of events this road stopping would be enacted under the Local Government Act. It is however proposed in this instance to utilise the Public Works Act instead of the Local Government Act.

6.11.2 The standard delegations that would normally apply to a road stopping are not applicable in this instance as the first substantive decision is to depart from the Road Stopping Policy. This is a decision to be made by the full Council and obviously requires consideration of the entire proposal. The rest of the decisions flow consequently from that and the resolutions of this report establish a delegation to implement the recommendations.

6.11.3 The proposed solution requires dealing unilaterally with the applicant which is a departure from the Councils property disposal policy as set out in 6.12 below.

6.11.4 The departures from Council policies are recommended to facilitate a practical and pragmatic solution to a situation. The land (legal road) is not required for roading purposes or other public works and is problematic for the Council in terms of maintenance and controlling of illegal carparking. Neighbours consents have been obtained to the proposal. There is no impact on the public due to the lack of physical access.

6.12    Council normally disposes of land through a public tender process, unless there is a clear reason for doing otherwise (See Attachment B3).

6.13    There is a clear reason for doing so in this scenario as there is only one practical and logical purchaser, being the Owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road. This is by virtue that an application to stop and purchase the subject portion of road from the owner of the other adjoining property (108 Sawyers Arms Road) could never be considered as it would cause 110 Sawyers Arms Road to become landlocked.

6.14    The only other adjoining owner (108 Sawyers Arms Road) has consented to the proposed road stopping, and accordingly has effectively indicated that they are satisfied that the land, if possible, be sold to the Owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road.

6.15    Practice has been to seek Council permission to depart from policy in these cases and this practice has been continued in this report.  The Community Board and Council can alternatively note that there is a clear reason not to publically tender, which is there being only one practical purchaser of the land.

7.   Conclusion and desired Outcomes

7.1       The best outcome to resolve the situation is to stop the road and sell it to the owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road. This has a number of complexities associated with it which can be resolved with the following:

·   Council resolves to depart from Policy and seeks to stop the road pursuant to the PWA.

·   Once the road stopping process is completed successfully, Council deal unilaterally and sells the land to the owner of the adjoining property being 110 Sawyers Arms Road.

8.   Option 1 – Depart from Council policy and stop the road using the Public Works Act 1981 process and dispose of the property through a unilateral dealing to the adjoining owner (preferred)

Option Description

8.1       This option involves the stopping of the road as prescribed in Part 8 of the PWA and is subject to approval by the Minister of Lands. The Minister of Lands consent is obtained by application to Crown Property Clearances which is part of Land Information New Zealand.

8.2       In addition to the consent of the Minister of Lands consent of other land owners adjoining the road to be stopped may be required. The PWA also allows stopped roads to be dealt with by the Council as if it had been stopped under the LGA, i.e. sold and amalgamated with adjoining land.

8.3       Once the road is stopped the land automatically becomes fee simple land which will then be able to be sold to the Owners of 110 Sawyers Arms Road.

Significance

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

8.5       Engagement requirements for this level of significance have been complied with by obtaining the consent of the adjoining owners.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

8.7       The adjoining owners are not adversely affected by this option and have provided their written consent.

8.8       The views of the community are not being sought because this is not a controversial project and there is no impact on the wider community.  Although they will not be aware of this road stopping it is also very unlikely that they are even aware the unformed road to be stopped is a “legal” road.  For all intents and purposes and in appearance it has appeared to be part of the property located at 110 Sawyers Arms Road.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

12.12.1 Inconsistency – utilising the road stopping process pursuant to the PWA as opposed to the LGA.

12.12.2 Reason for inconsistency – practicality as per paragraphs 6.11.

12.12.3 Amendment necessary – not applicable

Financial Implications

12.13  Cost of Implementation – none, the applicant is to meet all Councils costs

12.14  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – None, if stopped the road will be sold.

12.15 Funding source – not applicable - this will result in unbudgeted revenue.

Legal Implications

12.16  A standard agreement for sale and purchase will be prepared by the Legal Services Unit and signed by both parties. One of the conditions in the agreement is obtaining consent of the Council either under delegation or by Council resolution. 

12.17  This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

 

Risks and Mitigations  

12.18  There is no risk in stopping this portion of road. 

12.21  Risk and mitigations have been considered by the Transport Unit against the criteria in the Councils Road Stopping Policy, these criteria consider the City Plan, current level of use, future use, alternative uses, roads adjoining any water body, encumbrances, traffic safety and infrastructure. The Transport Unit concluded there is no reason not to stop the road.

Implementation

12.22  Implementation dependencies - survey plan creation, the Community Board approving the PWA process and obtaining the consent of the Minister of Lands

12.23  Implementation timeframe – 6 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

12.24  The advantages of this option include:

·   Is less costly for the applicant

·   Is relatively quick

·   The end result achieves the same outcome as Option 2 albeit using a different process

·   Regulatory checks and balances are in place because the PWA process requires approval from the Minister of Lands.

·   It is advantageous for Council as it reduces ongoing maintenance costs.

12.25  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   None.

9.   Option 2 – Stop the road using the Local Government Act 1974 procedure

Option Description

9.1       This option involves the stopping of the road under the provisions of the LGA which requires public advertisement.  If objections are received and NOT allowed then they must be referred to the Environment Court.

9.2       If the Council allows the objections then the road stopping is at an end and no further action will be taken, the road will remain unformed under Council’s ownership and maintenance responsibility.  

Significance

9.3       The level of significance of this option is low consistent with section 2 of this report. Although public advertisement has its merits the significance of this road stopping does not warrant consultation with the wider community.  Public advertisement is not justified.

9.4       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are in this case prescribed by the LGA and include

9.4.1      The Council shall have available a plan for inspection at its offices and

9.4.2      At least twice at intervals of not less than seven days give public notice of the proposal and

9.4.3      Such notice is to call for objections and

9.4.4      Have a notice placed in a conspicuous place at each end of the road to be stopped and

9.4.5      All notices must allow for a minimum period of at least 40 days after the first publication of the notice in which objections can be received.

Impact on Mana Whenua

9.5       As per Option 1, this option is not a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions.

Community Views and Preferences

9.6       Although the adjoining owner is not adversely affected by this option, he has provided his written consent to the road stopping.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

9.7       Cost of Implementation – none to Council, the applicant is to meet all Councils costs which for this option will be greater than option 1

9.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – None, if stopped the road will be sold.

9.9       Funding source – not applicable.

Legal Implications

9.10    A standard agreement for sale and purchase will be prepared by the Legal Services Unit and signed by both parties. One of the conditions in the agreement is obtaining consent of the Council either under delegation or by Council resolution

9.11    If the Council elects to use the LGA process the following process must be followed.

9.11.1 Public advertisement calling for objections

9.11.2 If no objections are received the Council may by public notice declare that the road is stopped.

9.11.3 If objections are received the Council will

9.11.4 refer any unsatisfied objections to a Hearing Panel who

9.11.5 will consider the objections and report their recommendations to Council and

9.11.6 If the objections are allowed the Council will resolve not to stop the road or

9.11.7 If the objections are not allowed refer them to the Environment Court with the plans along with a full description of the proposed alterations to the road.

9.11.8 The Environment Court shall consider the district plan, the plan of the road to be stopped, the Councils explanation of why the road should be stopped and the objections received and confirm, modify or reverse the decision of Council.

9.11.9 If the Environment Court reverses the Councils decision no proceeding shall be entertained by the Environment Court for 2 years or

9.11.10     If the Environment Court confirms the decision of the Council the Council may declare by public notice that the road is stopped and cease to be a road. 

9.12    It is not necessary for the Legal Services unit to review this report because these matters are procedural as prescribed by the LGA. 

Risks and Mitigations  

9.13    Risk and mitigations have been considered by the Transport Unit against the criteria in the Councils Road Stopping Policy, these criteria consider the City Plan, current level of use, future use alternative uses, road adjoining any water body, encumbrances, traffic safety and infrastructure. The Transport Unit concluded there is no reason not to stop the road.

9.14    If using the LGA process there is a risk that this proposed road stopping, if an objection is received, could attract unwarranted exposure if this matter ended up before the Environment Court.

Implementation

9.15    Implementation dependencies - the Community Board recommending and the Council endorsing the LGA process and potential subsequent referral of the matter to the Environment Court.

9.16    Implementation timeframe – 12 – 18+ months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

9.17    The advantages of this option include:

·   Wider consultation

9.18    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Longer time frame

·   Greater cost for the applicant

·   Potential to escalate a low significance matter into something it is not.

10. Option 3 – Do not stop the road

Option Description

10.1    The Council opts not to stop the road and continues to fund the ongoing maintenance and controlling of this portion of unmade road.

10.2    From a practical sense, and given that the unmade road is not required for any roading or public works purposes, this option will be costly for Council due to ongoing maintenance and controlling responsibilities.

Significance

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

10.4    Engagement requirements for this level of significance are non-existent.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

10.6    The applicant is specifically affected by this option due to the Transport Unit having assessed the roads suitability for stopping.  Their views are that we will have wasted their time and money.

10.7    The wider Community are very unlikely to know this piece of land is a road because it has been occupied by the land Owners for many years.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

10.8.1 Inconsistency – not applicable

10.8.2 Reason for inconsistency – not applicable

10.8.3 Amendment necessary – not applicable

Financial Implications

10.9    Cost of Implementation - nil

10.10  Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Mowing and landscape maintenance costs will be incurred. The unformed road would remain in Council ownership with associated responsibilities.

10.11  Funding source – Road and footpaths – maintenance.

Legal Implications

10.12  There is no legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision

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

Risks and Mitigations  

10.14  There is no risk associated with this action 

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

10.14.2  There may be further applications to stop the road.

Implementation

10.15  Implementation dependencies  - Council resolving not to stop the road

10.16  Implementation timeframe – 2 months

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

10.17  The advantages of this option include:

·   None

10.18  The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Disappointed rate payer

·   Further road stopping applications may be made and if so the matter would again have to be considered.

·   Council’s ongoing maintenance commitment in respect to the subject portion of unmade road will continue

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A

 

b  

Attachment B - Process Matters

 

 

 

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

Tom Lennon - Property Consultant

Approved By

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

Report from Banks Peninsula Community Board  – 15 April 2019

 

13.   Banks Peninsula Property Review Process

Reference:

19/449206

Presenter(s):

Angus Smith – Manager Property Consultancy

 

 

1. Banks Peninsula Community Board Consideration

 

The Board made several amendments to the Staff Recommendation, in part based on up to date verbal information supplied by staff, which resulted in changed recommendations for the following properties:

-      Stoddart Point Reserve – 2H Waipapa Avenue

-      Woodills Milk Store – 55 Woodills Road

-      Reservoir – 38 Waipapa Avenue

-      Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

-      Vacant Land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

-      Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip – 150 Old Sumner Road

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board :

Notes that:

1.         The purpose of this report is to determine the future use of land holdings that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased. This is to be achieved by categorising them into the following three options for incorporation in a recommended resolution to Council.

Three options:

3.1          Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

3.2          Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal.

3.3          Option3 - Retention to explore an alternative public use.

2.         It has received advice through workshops and staff reports (including the public excluded attachment titled “Update January 2019”) on the possible future use of the various land holdings in this report.

3.         To help inform a final resolution recommendation those workshop outcomes and suggestions were further reviewed and discussed at a workshop on the 28th January prior to this report being considered. The outcomes of which are summarised as follows: 

a.         Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal (noting the lessee indicated after the workshop that they wish to surrender the lease).

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: There was no interest from other Council infrastructure units i.e. Transport, Parks and 3 Waters. The Board requested that staff discuss with St Johns whether this is a suitable site for their requirements.

b.         BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose (and initiate a process to investigate future development options).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That this be referred to Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

c.         Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks and Transport have no interest in the property. Support declaring the property surplus.

d.         HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018:  Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 3 – Retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.  Subject to the criteria below under recommended resolution to Council 5.a being met.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the staff recommendation i.e. retention for incorporation into the Parks portfolio.

e.         Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 3 - Retention and transfer an alternative public work use (Subject to the criteria below under Recommended resolution to Council 5(a) being met)

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks indicated a preliminary view that this was probably of no interest to include in their portfolio and add to the network. The Board requested that the Council’s Parks team further look at this property more closely with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised.

f.          Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Roadd, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain balance for a future strategic purpose, retain and protect the bush gullies (noting that there is a separate process already underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the recommendation.

g.         Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but acknowledges the community may desire the property be retained as open space. Parks are therefore requested to reconsider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

h.         Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The reason for ownership was not evident and therefore declaring it surplus for disposal is an option. The Community Board wants to further understand adjoining ownership, whether there would be an offer back obligation and what the relationship / arrangement / obligations may or may not be with regards to the postal boxes.

i.          Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation:  Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the Community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but wants to be assured the property is not required for open space / recreation purposes, particularly walking track purposes. Parks are therefore requested to consider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

j.          Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “these cliffs have high ecological values, they support a significant biota (flora and fauna). Not least they are classified as a nationally rare ecosystem which are a national priority for protection” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

k.         Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “it may have some ecological values on the small cliffs at the base of the property” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

l.          Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “this is a dryland site that may support indigenous biota.  We already have some serious biodiversity issues in the Kaitorete / Birdlings Flat area so need to be very sure that the site has no values before disposing of it.  It may have restoration potential.”  It was discussed and considered that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

m.       Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: It was determined that the tenancy in the house be terminated and it then be demolished as it is at the end of its economic life. There are no Transport requirements for the land. Parks indicated that they would like to check the value of retaining the land or a portion for a connection to Little River Esplanade Reserve or potential for a freedom camping site.

As a result of the above the Community Board recommends to Council that it passes the following resolutions:

 

4.         Option 1.

a.         Approves retention of the following properties for a future strategic purpose.

i.       BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud and that this be referred to DCL to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

 

ii.      Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Road, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road - Retain for a future strategic purpose yet to be determined and protect the bush gullies (noting that there has been a separate report and process underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

 

5.         Option 2.

a.         Declares the following properties surplus for disposal.

i.       Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road subject to:

·   The property being circularised to determine there is no other alternative public use.

·   St Johns not being interested in the site. If there was an interest that would be reported back to the Board for consideration.

 

ii.      Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

 

iii.     Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Ave subject to:

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

iv.     Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue

 

v.      Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road subject to:

·     The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

vi.     Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch Akaroa Road – subject to:

·   Termination of the tenancy and demolition of the house.

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

b.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

i.          Determine at his discretion satisfaction of the “subject to” conditions.

ii.         Commence the sale process for the properties set out in the resolution above in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies (including unilateral dealings where a tender is not practical).

iii.        Conclude the sale of these properties on the best terms considered available, as supported by valuation advice and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

iv.        To do all things and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

6.         Option 3.

a.         Supports retention of the following properties to explore an alternative public use subject to the conditions below:

i.       HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road - that this property be retained and transferred into the Parks portfolio.

 

ii.      Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road - the Board request that the Council’s Parks team further look at this property more closely and report back with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised.

 

iii.     Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road – the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there are high ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

iv.     Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road - the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there may be ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

v.      Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road - the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there may be ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

b.         Retention of the properties is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

i.          Can be rationalised,

ii.         Satisfies a clearly identified need,

iii.        Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

iv.        Supports Council strategies,

v.         Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

vi.        Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the LTP.

 

c.         The Community Board is delegated authority to make a retention decision for an alternative use so long as all of the conditions set out in resolution 5 above are met to its satisfaction.

 

7.         Notes the property at 40 Rue Jolie was originally included in this process, but has subsequently been considered in a separate heritage buildings process.

 

3. Banks Peninsula Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council :

Notes that:

1.         The purpose of this report is to determine the future use of land holdings that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased. This is to be achieved by categorising them into the following three options for incorporation in a recommended resolution to Council.

Three options:

3.1          Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

3.2          Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal.

3.3          Option3 - Retention to explore an alternative public use.

2.         It has received advice through workshops and staff reports (including the public excluded attachment titled “Update January 2019”) on the possible future use of the various land holdings in this report.

3.         To help inform a final resolution recommendation those workshop outcomes and suggestions were further reviewed and discussed at a workshop on the 28th January prior to this report being considered. The outcomes of which are summarised as follows: 

a.         Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal (noting the lessee indicated after the workshop that they wish to surrender the lease).

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: There was no interest from other Council infrastructure units i.e. Transport, Parks and 3 Waters. The Board requested that staff discuss with St Johns whether this is a suitable site for their requirements.

b.         BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose (and initiate a process to investigate future development options).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That this be referred to Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

c.         Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks and Transport have no interest in the property. Support declaring the property surplus.

d.         HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018:  Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 3 – Retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.  Subject to the criteria below under recommended resolution to Council 5.a being met.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the staff recommendation i.e. retention for incorporation into the Parks portfolio.

 

e.         Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 3 - Retention and transfer an alternative public work use (Subject to the criteria below under Recommended resolution to Council 5(a) being met)

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks indicated a preliminary view that this was probably of no interest to include in their portfolio and add to the network. The Board requested That the Council’s Parks team further look at this property more closely with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised.

f.          Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Road, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain balance for a future strategic purpose, retain and protect the bush gullies (noting that there is a separate process already underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the recommendation.

g.         Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but acknowledges the community may desire the property be retained as open space. Parks are therefore requested to reconsider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

h.         Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The reason for ownership was not evident and therefore declaring it surplus for disposal is an option. The Community Board wants to further understand adjoining ownership, whether there would be an offer back obligation and what the relationship / arrangement / obligations may or may not be with regards to the postal boxes.

i.          Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation:  Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the Community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but wants to be assured the property is not required for open space / recreation purposes, particularly walking track purposes. Parks are therefore requested to consider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

j.          Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “these cliffs have high ecological values, they support a significant biota (flora and fauna). Not least they are classified as a nationally rare ecosystem which are a national priority for protection” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

k.         Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “it may have some ecological values on the small cliffs at the base of the property” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

l.          Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “this is a dryland site that may support indigenous biota.  We already have some serious biodiversity issues in the Kaitorete / Birdlings Flat area so need to be very sure that the site has no values before disposing of it.  It may have restoration potential.”  It was discussed and considered that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

m.       Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.        Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: It was determined that the tenancy in the house be terminated and it then be demolished as it is at the end of its economic life. There are no Transport requirements for the land. Parks indicated that they would like to check the value of retaining the land or a portion for a connection to Little River Esplanade Reserve or potential for a freedom camping site.

That the Council passes the following resolutions:

 

4.         Option 1.

a.         Approves retention of the following properties for a future strategic purpose.

i.       BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud and that this be referred to Development Christchurch Ltd to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

 

ii.      Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Road, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road - Retain for a future strategic purpose yet to be determined and protect the bush gullies (noting that there has been a separate report and process underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

 

iii      Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue – because it currently has community value due to the provision of postal services operating from one of the buildings on site. The future of the property to be reconsidered if the postal services are relocated.

 

5.         Option 2.

a.         Declares the following properties surplus for disposal.

i.       Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

ii.      Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Ave subject to:

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

·   Information on the proposal to dispose of the property being circulated via the Diamond Harbour Community Association to the local community.

 

iii.     Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road subject to:

·     The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

iv.     Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road – due to advice from staff that it is not considered to be of any ecological value.

 

b.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

i.          Determine at his discretion satisfaction of the “subject to” conditions.

ii.         Commence the sale process for the properties set out in the resolution above in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies (including unilateral dealings where a tender is not practical).

iii.        Conclude the sale of these properties on the best terms considered available, as supported by valuation advice and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

iv.        To do all things and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

6.         Option 3.

a.         Supports retention of the following properties to explore an alternative public use subject to the conditions below:

i.       HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road - that this property be retained and transferred into the Parks portfolio.

 

ii.      Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road - the Board request That the Council’s Parks team further look at this property including discussions with the Board more closely and report back with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised by the public.

 

iii.     Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road – the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there are high ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

iv.     Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road - the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there may be ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

v.      Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road subject to:

·   The property being circularised to determine there is no other alternative public use.

·   St Johns not being interested in the site. If there was an interest that would be reported back to the Board for consideration.

 

vi.     Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch Akaroa Road – subject to:

·   Termination of the tenancy and demolition of the house.

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

·    Advice from the Heritage team to establish that there are no heritage values associated with the house.

 

b.         Retention of the properties is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

i.          Can be rationalised,

ii.         Satisfies a clearly identified need,

iii.        Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

iv.        Supports Council strategies,

v.         Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

vi.        Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the LTP.

c.         The Community Board is delegated authority to make a retention decision for an alternative use so long as all of the conditions set out in resolution 5 above are met to its satisfaction.

7.         Notes the property at 40 Rue Jolie was originally included in this process, but has subsequently been considered in a separate heritage buildings process.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

Property Review Process

76

 

No.

Title

Page

a  

Update January 2019 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

b

Property List Akaroa Waiwera

89

c

Property List Lyttelton Mt Herbert

102

d  

Workshop Outcomes (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

e

Process Workflow

117

 

 


Te Pātaka o Rākaihautū/Banks Peninsula Community Board

15 April 2019

 

 

Property Review Process

Reference:

18/1382315

Contact:

Angus Smith

Manager Property Consultancy

 

 

 


1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Banks Peninsula Community Board to confirm the outcomes of a workshop at the end of last year which considered a list of properties in its area that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased. In doing so this report seeks a recommendation from the Board to the Council on resolutions to formalise and initiate the next steps in the process.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated to follow up on a Council resolution of 12 May 2016 Council Resolved CNCL/2016/00242 and related workshops held with Community Boards.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined on the basis that this is largely a general report implementing a process that follows a number of workshops and engagement with the community Boards.

2.1.2   Additionally given the general nature of the assets the number of people affected and to what extent is generally nil to low. Any significance issues based on individual property specifics is likely to be attended to on an individual property at future stages and at related decision points in the process.

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

 


 

3.   Staff Recommendations:

That the Banks Peninsula Community Board :

Notes that:

1.         The purpose of this report is to determine the future use of land holdings that are no longer required, or being utilised, for the purpose that they were originally purchased. This is to be achieved by categorising them into the following three options for incorporation in a recommended resolution to Council.

Three options:

3.1          Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

3.2          Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal.

3.3          Option3 - Retention to explore an alternative public use.

2.         It has received advice through workshops and staff reports (including the public excluded attachment titled “Update January 2019”) on the possible future use of the various land holdings in this report.

3.         To help inform a final resolution recommendation those workshop outcomes and suggestions were further reviewed and discussed at a workshop on the 28th January prior to this report being considered. The outcomes of which are summarised as follows: 

a.         Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 - Declared surplus for disposal (noting the lessee indicated after the workshop that they wish to surrender the lease).

iii.       Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: There was no interest from other Council infrastructure units i.e. Transport, Parks and 3 Waters. The Board requested that staff discuss with St Johns whether this is a suitable site for their requirements.

b.         BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose (and initiate a process to investigate future development options).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That this be referred to Development Christchurch Ltd (DCL) to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

c.         Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks and Transport have no interest in the property. Support declaring the property surplus.

d.         HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road

i.          Initial workshop outcome 2018:  Option 1 - Retain for a future strategic purpose.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 3 – Retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.  Subject to the criteria below under recommended resolution to Council 5.a being met.

iii.       Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the staff recommendation i.e. retention for incorporation into the Parks portfolio.

e.         Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 3 - Retention and transfer an alternative public work use (Subject to the criteria below under Recommended resolution to Council 5(a) being met)

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Parks indicated a preliminary view that this was probably of no interest to include in their portfolio and add to the network. The Board requested that the Council’s Parks team further look at this property more closely with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised.

f.          Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Roadd, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 1 - Retain balance for a future strategic purpose, retain and protect the bush gullies (noting that there is a separate process already underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: Support the recommendation.

g.         Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but acknowledges the community may desire the property be retained as open space. Parks are therefore requested to reconsider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

h.         Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The reason for ownership was not evident and therefore declaring it surplus for disposal is an option. The Community Board wants to further understand adjoining ownership, whether there would be an offer back obligation and what the relationship / arrangement / obligations may or may not be with regards to the postal boxes.

i.          Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road

i.          Recommendation:  Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: That the Community Board is not aware of any alternative public uses for the site, but wants to be assured the property is not required for open space / recreation purposes, particularly walking track purposes. Parks are therefore requested to consider whether this property should be retained for that purpose.

j.          Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “these cliffs have high ecological values, they support a significant biota (flora and fauna). Not least they are classified as a nationally rare ecosystem which are a national priority for protection” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

k.         Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Recommendation: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

ii.         Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “it may have some ecological values on the small cliffs at the base of the property” It was discussed and consider that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

l.          Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.       Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: The Council Senior Policy Planner provided advice that – “this is a dryland site that may support indigenous biota.  We already have some serious biodiversity issues in the Kaitorete / Birdlings Flat area so need to be very sure that the site has no values before disposing of it.  It may have restoration potential.”  It was discussed and considered that the staff (including the Parks – Team Leader Biodiversity) need to review this property in that context and provide further advice on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

m.       Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch-Akaroa Road

i.          Workshop outcome: Consider retention and transfer to an alternative public work use.

ii.         Staff suggestion: Option 2 – Declared surplus for disposal.

iii.       Recent workshop outcome 28 January 2019: It was determined that the tenancy in the house be terminated and it then be demolished as it is at the end of its economic life. There are no Transport requirements for the land. Parks indicated that they would like to check the value of retaining the land or a portion for a connection to Little River Esplanade Reserve or potential for a freedom camping site.

As a result of the above the Community Board recommends to Council that it passes the following resolutions:

 

4.         Option 1.

a.         Approves retention of the following properties for a future strategic purpose.

i.       BP Meats Development - 67A Rue Lavaud and that this be referred to DCL to assess and develop viable commercial regeneration options for the Board to consider and develop a future process from.

 

ii.     Development Land Ngatea Point – 27 Hunters Road, 5A & 31A Te Papau Crescent, 42 Whero Avenue, 399 Bayview Road - Retain for a future strategic purpose yet to be determined and protect the bush gullies (noting that there has been a separate report and process underway relating to the protection of the bush gullies).

 

5.         Option 2.

a.         Declares the following properties surplus for disposal.

i.       Woodills Milk Store - 55 Woodills Road subject to:

·   The property being circularised to determine there is no other alternative public use.

·   St Johns not being interested in the site. If there was an interest that would be reported back to the Board for consideration.

 

ii.     Shackleton Reserve - 10 Shackleton Terrace

 

iii.    Reservoir - 38 Waipapa Ave subject to:

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

iv.    Stoddart Point Reserve - 2H Waipapa Avenue

 

v.      Reservoir – 306 Bayview Road subject to:

·     The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

vi.    Little River Education House – 4421 Christchurch Akaroa Road – subject to:

·   Termination of the tenancy and demolition of the house.

·   The property being circularised internally within Council to determine there is no other alternative public use.

 

b.         Grants delegated authority to the Property Consultancy Manager to:

i.          Determine at his discretion satisfaction of the “subject to” conditions.

ii.         Commence the sale process for the properties set out in the resolution above in accordance with Council’s normal practices and policies (including unilateral dealings where a tender is not practical).

iii.       Conclude the sale of these properties on the best terms considered available, as supported by valuation advice and in consideration of other factors including marketing and market dynamics, including if the minimum price is not achievable by tender then the property may be sold by private treaty.

iv.        To do all things and make decisions at his sole discretion that are necessary to give effect to this resolution.

6.         Option 3.

a.         Supports retention of the following properties to explore an alternative public use subject to the conditions below:

i.       HMNZS Steadfast - 64 & 86 Governors Bay Road - that this property be retained and transferred into the Parks portfolio.

 

ii.     Gollans Bay Rubbish Tip - 150 Old Sumner Road - the Board request that the Council’s Parks team further look at this property more closely and report back with the view of retaining it in the Parks portfolio for open space and recreational use, as it currently seems to be actively utilised.

 

iii.    Rural Land (Store Livestock) – 3381 Christchurch-Akaroa Road – the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there are high ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

iv.    Vacant land – 2979 Christchurch-Akaroa Road - the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there may be ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

v.      Former Quarry Freehold - 79 Jones Road - the Board request that staff (including the Parks – Team leader Biodiversity) review this property in the context of the Council’s Senior Policy Planner advice that there may be ecological values and report back on whether retention or protection mechanisms are required.

 

b.         Retention of the properties is conditional upon staff and the Community Board engaging in a process that identifies an alternative public use that:

i.          Can be rationalised,

ii.         Satisfies a clearly identified need,

iii.       Is supported by a sound and robust business case,

iv.        Supports Council strategies,

v.         Has established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans,

vi.        Has an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor who supports retention for the alternative public use and holds an appropriate budget provision within the LTP.

 

c.         The Community Board is delegated authority to make a retention decision for an alternative use so long as all of the conditions set out in resolution 5 above are met to its satisfaction.

 

7.         Notes the property at 40 Rue Jolie was originally included in this process, but has subsequently been considered in a separate heritage buildings process.

 

 


4.   Key Points

4.1       This report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2015 - 2025):

4.1.1   Activity: Facilities, Property & Planning

·     Level of Service: 13.4.10.0 Property advice and services that support the delivery of other Council Services - At least 90% projects delivered to agreed timeframes per annum.

4.2       The Council has adopted a process for determining the future use of properties that are no longer being utilised for a public work i.e. delivering a service or activity.

4.3       That process has been socialised with Community Board’s on a couple of occasions, with a workshop at the end of last year to categorise the properties into specific actions. This report serves to formally adopt those actions.

4.4       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 - Endorse the Community Boards work-shopped recommendations (preferred)

·     Option 2 - Adopt different categorisations and outcomes

4.5       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.6       Both options are relatively similar and almost have the same advantages. The difference is that under Option 2 the Community Board and Council can review and change the categorisation from that discussed in the workshop and therefore future use of the properties.

4.6.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Supports Community Board process, thinking and desires to date.

·     Creates certainty.

·     Provides continued momentum to the process.

·     Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes,

4.6.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Nil

 


5.   Context/Background

Background

5.1       The Council purchases properties for the delivery of a service / activity / public work.  When in use, properties are held and funded by the business unit delivering that service / activity or project.

5.2       When a property is no longer required for the purpose for which it was originally held it is prudent for Council to make a conscious decision to determine the future use of that property.  Holding land with an indeterminate purpose or reason is not prudent and may put the Council at operational risk for example:

5.2.1   Reputational for not proactively and prudently managing and utilising property assets.

5.2.2   Being reactively driven by unilateral unsolicited proposals to outcomes.  

5.2.3   Legislative non-compliance e.g. not dealing with offer back obligations (section 40 of the Public works Act) appropriately.

5.2.4   Not meeting the principles of the Local Government Act.

5.2.5   Inappropriate uses developing e.g. vandalism, unsanctioned occupations.

5.2.6   Poor maintenance and compliance.

5.3       Holding property without an agreed reason, purpose or use also comes at a cost in terms of operating / holding, foregone capital, potential social, poor community outcomes and therefore imprudent custodianship of public assets / money.

5.4       In general terms the Council only holds land that is:

5.4.1   Required for a public work, either; currently utilised to deliver an activity or service; or held for future delivery of the same; and

5.4.2   Held for strategic purposes e.g. project; and

5.4.3   Held pending a future use decision i.e. under review in terms of future use. 

5.5       The Council adopted a process in May 2016 that is designed to facilitate and make decisions that support the active and prudent management of the Council’s property.

Process

5.6       A flow chart of the process is attached, but in summary is as follows:

5.6.1   When a property ceases to be held for the purpose of delivering the activity or service for which it was originally purchased then it is circularised around business units, Community Boards and possible stakeholders to assess and identify community needs and develop options to for alternative public uses.

5.6.2   This is generally done on a semi regular basis, dictated by the number of properties that are no longer required for their original purpose.

5.6.3   A period of six months is provided to establish the alternative public uses and options.

5.6.4   The results are collated into an options report which would usually incorporate as one of the options sale.

5.6.5   The Council then resolve future use based on staff and Community Board recommendations.

5.7       Retaining the property for an alternative public use needs:

5.7.1   To be rationalised,

5.7.2   A clearly identified need,

5.7.3   To be supported by a sound and robust business case,

5.7.4   Supporting Council strategies,

5.7.5   Established funding in the Council’s annual and long term plans

5.7.6   To have an identified sponsor i.e. end asset owner (titular internal owner) / sponsor and budget provision within the LTP

5.8       It is important to note that this is not a process to review or rationalise the Council’s property holdings that are currently held by asset owning units to deliver a service or activity. That would need to be a separate organisation wide exercise.

Current status

5.9       The community boards have considered a list of properties in the ward that are no longer being utilised for the original intended purpose for which they were purchased and in doing so have categorised them as follows:

5.9.1   Held - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be retained for a strategic purpose.

5.9.2   Sold - Recommending on whether any of the properties should be declared surplus for disposal.

5.9.3   Used - Deciding on which properties the Board and staff will work on over the coming months to identify as having alternative public uses for recommending to the Council for a decision.

5.10    A list of the properties that are within this community board’s area and how they were categorised at the work shop at the end of last year is attached – “Workshop Recommendations”. This report seeks endorsement of those categories and thereby implementation of either sale (5.9.2 above) or a process to determine an alternative use (5.9.3 above).

5.10.1 Sale of a property would be implemented immediately in accordance with the resolutions above and normal Council practices and policies.

5.10.2 The intention to implement a process to support an alternative future use decision will see staff working with the community board to design a process for each property to help deliver an outcome e.g. tender/request for proposal, expression of interest, community engagement, consultation, unilateral dealing etc.

5.10.3 The Banks Peninsula Community Board also chose to visit a number of sites after the workshop, and the recommendations in this report reflect the views after both the workshop and the site visit.

 

6.   Option 1 – Endorse the Community Boards Work-shopped Recommendations (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       That the Community Board reviews the outcomes from the workshop as per attached. Endorses these and recommends to the Council that it pass the resolutions above in section 3 - Staff Recommendations.  This would enable some positive initiatives to be undertaken to achieve sale or determining future use, as well as creating certainty for those properties to be retained for a strategic purpose.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       The substantive decisions required from this report do not require any specific consultation to seek community views and preferences. Attending to the future use of some of the properties may require some form of consultation and/or community engagement and that will be built into the process developed by staff and the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

6.6.1   Inconsistency – Not applicable

6.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not applicable

6.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

6.7       Cost of Implementation – The specific resolutions of this report have no direct impact, though future individual property decisions may have. These will need to be considered separately depending on the circumstances.

6.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable refer above.

6.9       Funding source – Not applicable refer above.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

6.12    The purpose of this process and decision making is to create certainty and reduce risk.

Implementation

6.13    Implementation dependencies - On going collaborative work and support between staff and the Community Board to determine future uses.

6.14    Implementation timeframe – April to September initiate sale process or community engagement / consultation process depending on the property and its categorisation.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.15    The advantages of this option include:

·   Supports Community Board process, thinking and desires to date.

·   Creates certainty.

·   Provides continued momentum to the process.

·   Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes,

6.16    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Nil

7.   Option 2 – Adopt different categorisations and outcomes

Option Description

7.1       That the Community Board reviews the outcomes from the workshop as per attached. Adopts and recommends those with some changes for Council to consider. In doing so the Council could adopt those or re-categorise as it sees fit. Accordingly appropriately amending and passing the resolutions above in section 3 - Staff Recommendations. This would enable some positive initiatives to be undertaken to achieve sale or determining future use, as well as creating certainty for those properties to be retained for a strategic purpose.

Significance

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

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

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       The substantive decisions required from this report do not require any specific consultation to seek community views and preferences. Attending to the future use of some of the properties may require some form of consultation and/or community engagement and that will be built into the process developed by staff and the Community Board.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

7.6.1   Inconsistency – Not applicable

7.6.2   Reason for inconsistency – Not applicable

7.6.3   Amendment necessary – Not applicable

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – The specific resolutions of this report have no direct impact. Though future individual property decisions may have. These will need to be considered separately depending on the circumstances.

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – Not applicable refer above.

7.9       Funding source – Not applicable refer above.

Legal Implications

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

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

Risks and Mitigations  

7.11.1 The purpose of this process and decision making is to create certainty and reduce risk.

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - Ongoing collaborative work and support between staff and the Community Board to determine future uses.

7.13    Implementation timeframe – April to September initiate sale process or community engagement / consultation process depending on the property and its categorisation.

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   Creates certainty.

·   Provides continued momentum to the process.

·   Provides good prudent management and custodianship of Council’s property assets while balancing community outcomes.

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Council’s decisions may not align with the Community Boards desired outcomes.

 

 


Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Update January 2019 (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

b  

Property List Akaroa Waiwera

 

c  

Property List Lyttelton Mt Herbert

 

d  

Workshop Outcomes (Under Separate Cover) - Confidential

 

e  

Process Workflow

 

 

 


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.

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

Signatories

Author

Angus Smith - Manager Property Consultancy

Approved By

Bruce Rendall - Head of Facilities, Property & Planning

Anne Columbus - General Manager Corporate Services

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

Report from Coastal-Burwood Community Board  – 15 April 2019

 

14.   New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5

Reference:

19/455298

Presenter(s):

Neil Gillon, Senior Project Manager - Transport

 

 

1. Coastal-Burwood Community Board Consideration

 

Staff advised an amendment to the staff recommendations in the meeting agenda to accommodate a change in bus stop location as the result of a safety audit.  This affected the distances stated in recommendations 24, 25, 26.

 

Staff tabled a new plan showing these amended locations. See attachment E.

 

Staff recommended that the Board appoints a nominee of the Community Board, along with a community representative nominated by the Community Board, to be available to be members of the Public Art Advisory Group for the artwork proposed for Marine Parade.

 

Staff responded to each of the points raised in the four deputations and the correspondence from New Zealand Automobile Association.  Staff also responded to questions from Board members who took the information into account when considering the decision.

 

Staff advised that the detailed design would include more detailed aspects than the concept drawings showed.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) if the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board   meeting of the 15 April 2019; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 Applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the resolution as approved.

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board :

1.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Hawke Street be revoked. 

2.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Beresford Street be revoked.

3.         Approve that all traffic controls, kerb alignments and road markings except the speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

4.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

5.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 232 metres revoked.

6.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

7.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

8.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

9.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

10.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

11.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

12.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

13.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

14.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

15.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

16.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies

17.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A.  Note 2 applies

18.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Hawke Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

19.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Beresford Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

20.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

21.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 14.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 38.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

24.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 44.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 60.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 75 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

26.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 75 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 90.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 157.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 18.5 metres south of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 42.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 27 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 69.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 75.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

33.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 81.5 metres south of its new intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 96 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approves that a Loading Zone be created and be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes, on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 05:00am and 8:00am, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres southeast of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 08:00am and 5:00am the following day, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 159 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

38.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies

39.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

40.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

41.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

42.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

43.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, on Marine Parade located on at a point 116.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street, measured to the midpoint of the crossing, as detailed on Attachment 1. Note 2 applies.

Recommend that the Council:

44.       Approve, pursuant to Part 4 Section 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that speed limits on Marine Parade, Hawke Street and Beresford Street be revoked and set as identified in Attachment E and listed below in Clauses 1a – 1d including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Marine Parade commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

c.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

d.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

e.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

f.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

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

 

3. Coastal-Burwood Community Board Decisions Under Delegation

 

Part C

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Hawke Street be revoked. 

2.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Beresford Street be revoked.

3.         Approve that all traffic controls, kerb alignments and road markings except the speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

4.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

5.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 232 metres revoked.

6.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

7.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

8.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

9.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

10.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

11.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

12.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

13.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

14.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

15.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

16.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies

17.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies

18.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Hawke Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

19.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Beresford Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

20.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

21.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 14.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 38.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

24.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 44.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 82.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 127 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

26.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 141.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 90.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 18.5 metres south of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 42.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 27 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 69.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 75.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

33.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 81.5 metres south of its new intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 96 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approves that a Loading Zone be created and be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes, on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 05:00am and 8:00am, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres southeast of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 08:00am and 5:00am the following day, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 159 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

38.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies

39.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

40.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

41.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

42.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

43.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, on Marine Parade located on at a point 116.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street, measured to the midpoint of the crossing, as detailed on Attachment 1. Note 2 applies.

         44.       Appoints a nominee of the Community Board, along with a community representative                       nominated by the Community Board,  to be available to be members of the Public             Art                       Advisory Group for the artwork proposed for Marine Parade

  45.        Requests staff to consider having the urban designer involved in the next stages of the                     project

         46.      Requests reporting updates at key milestones

Tim Baker abstained from voting

 

4. Coastal-Burwood Community Board Recommendation to Council

 

(Original Staff Recommendations to the Council accepted without change)

That the Council resolve to:

47.       Approve, pursuant to Part 4 Section 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that speed limits on Marine Parade, Hawke Street and Beresford Street be revoked and set as identified in Attachment E and listed below in Clauses a – d including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Marine Parade commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

c.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

d.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

e.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

f.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

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

Tim Baker abstained from voting

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5

130

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A: Preferred Scheme - Option 3

146

b

Attachment B: Consultation Option 1

148

c

Attachment C: Consultation Option 2

149

d

Attachment D: Consultation data analysis and submissions table

150

e

Attachment E: Tabled Preferred Scheme

183

 

 


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

15 April 2019

 

 

New Brighton Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5

Reference:

19/243114

Presenter(s):

Sharon O’Neill – Project Management Team Leader Transport
Tessa Zant – Senior Engagement Advisor
Cath Carter – Development Manager, Development Christchurch Limited

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board of the outcome of community consultation and to request that it approve the proposed design for the length of Marine Parade between Hawke Street and Beresford Street (including the intersections at Hawke Street and Beresford Street), and that the Board recommend to Council that it approve the proposed 30km/h speed limit.  The preferred option is shown in Attachment A.  The proposed options consulted on are shown in Attachment B and Attachment C and the submissions analysis is shown in Attachment D.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       The upgrade of this length of Marine Parade will help the redevelopment and recovery of the New Brighton commercial centre by improving access between the foreshore and the commercial centre and providing for commercial development along this length of Marine Parade.  The project is part of the New Brighton Suburban Centre Master Plan.

2.2       Three options have been considered with the preferred option being upgrading Marine Parade and undertaking some minor improvements in Brighton Mall as budget allows.  Further improvement in the Mall could be considered once proposed commercial development there is better known.

2.3       Community views on the project were sought through public consultation in October and November 2017. Consultation material outlined two design options and asked a number of multi choice questions. Submissions were received from 174 groups and individuals.

2.4       The Council’s Long Term Plan (2018-2028) identifies this project as New Brighton Master Plan Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5 with scheduled completion in Financial Year 2020.  The total budget provision is $4.618 million.

2.5       The preferred option provides for additional parking spaces, widened footpaths, spaces for outdoor dining on this length of Marine Parade and provision of artwork(s) in the vicinity of Brighton Mall.  The flush surface of the roadway and paths provides a flexible space should the road be closed for events.

2.6       If the scheme is approved by the Community Board and Council, detailed design will proceed with the aim of completing construction by February 2020, earlier if possible.

2.7       The Council’s Public Art Advisory Group will include a nominee from the Coastal-Burwood Community Board and a representative from the local community with respect to the artwork proposed for Marine Parade.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

 

For the purposes of the following resolutions: (1) an intersection is defined by the position of kerbs on each intersecting roadway; and (2) The resolution is to take effect from the commencement of physical road works associated with the project as detailed in this report; and (3) if the resolution states "Note 1 applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the kerb line location referenced as exists on the road immediately prior to the Coastal-Burwood Community Board   meeting of the 15 April 2019; and (4) If the resolution states "Note 2 Applies", any distance specified in the resolution relates the approved kerb line location on the road resulting from the resolution as approved.

That the Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board:

1.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Hawke Street be revoked. 

2.         Approve all intersection traffic controls at the intersection of Marine Parade with Beresford Street be revoked.

3.         Approve that all traffic controls, kerb alignments and road markings except the speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

4.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

5.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 232 metres revoked.

6.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

7.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street be revoked.

8.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

9.         Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

10.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

11.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

12.       Approve that all existing parking and stopping restrictions on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres be revoked. Note 1 Applies.

13.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction to its intersection with Beresford Street as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

14.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

15.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Marine Parade commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies.

16.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies

17.       Approves the lane marking changes, kerb alignment changes and road surface changes, on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 50 metres as detailed in Attachment A. Note 2 Applies

18.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Hawke Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

19.       Approve that a Give Way control be placed against Beresford Street at its intersection with Marine Parade Street, as detailed in Appendix A.

20.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 45 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

21.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

22.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 14.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

23.       Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 38.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

24.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 44.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 16 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

25.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the east side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 60.5 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

26.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 75 metres south of the intersection of Marine Parade with the prolongation of the southern kerb alignment of Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 157.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

27.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of 34 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

28.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

29.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 18.5 metres south of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 24 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

30.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 42.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 27 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

31.       Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 60 minutes and be reserved for vehicles with an approved disabled person’s parking permit, prominently displayed in the vehicle, in accordance with section 6.4 (1a) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.  This restriction is to apply at any time and be located on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 69.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

32.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 75.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of six metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

33.       Approve that a Bus Stop be created on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 81.5 metres south of its new intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 14.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

34.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 96 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 44.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

35.       Approves that a Loading Zone be created and be restricted to a maximum period of five minutes, on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 05:00am and 8:00am, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

36.       Approve that the parking of vehicles be restricted to a maximum period of 30 minutes on the west side of Marine Parade commencing at a point 141 metres southeast of its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 18 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. This restriction is to apply between 08:00am and 5:00am the following day, Monday to Sunday. Note 2 applies.

37.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at a point 159 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22.5 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

38.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the west side of Marine Parade, commencing at its intersection with Beresford Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 22 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies

39.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade, and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 31 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

40.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 30 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

41.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

42.       Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south side of Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 10 metres, as detailed on Attachment A. Note 2 applies.

43.       Approve that a pedestrian crossing be duly established and marked in accordance section 8.2 of the Land Transport Rule – Traffic Control Devices: 2004, on Marine Parade located on at a point 116.5 metres south of its intersection with Hawke Street, measured to the midpoint of the crossing, as detailed on Attachment 1. Note 2 applies.

Recommend that the Council:

44.       Approve, pursuant to Part 4 Section 27 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, and Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017, that speed limits on Marine Parade, Hawke Street and Beresford Street be revoked and set as identified in Attachment A and listed below in Clauses 1a – 1d including resultant changes made to the Christchurch City Council Register of Speed Limits and associated Speed Limit Maps:

a.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Marine Parade commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres.

b.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Marine Parade, commencing at a point 20 metres north of its intersection with Hawke Street and extending in a southerly direction for a distance of 225 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

c.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Hawke Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

d.         Approve that the permanent speed limit on Hawke Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

e.         Revoke the existing permanent speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour on Beresford Street commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres.

f.          Approve that the permanent speed limit on Beresford Street, commencing at its intersection with Marine Parade and extending in a westerly direction for a distance of 20 metres, be set at 30 kilometres per hour.

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

 

4.   Context/Background

Opportunity

4.1       The project forms part of the New Brighton Master Plan.  The upgrade of this length of Marine Parade is designed to assist the redevelopment and recovery of the New Brighton commercial centre by improving access between the foreshore (which includes the new playground and proposed hot saltwater pools) and the commercial centre.  It also allows for further development along this length of Marine Parade.

Strategic Alignment

4.2       This project is identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 – 2028) as New Brighton Master Plan Streetscape Enhancements A2, A4, A5 (CPMS #37865).  It is scheduled for completion in Financial Year 2020

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

4.3.1   Activity: Active Travel

·     Level of Service: 16.0.10.0 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city - =84%

Decision Making Authority

4.4       The Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board has delegated authority to make the decisions included in the recommendations of this report in relation to the road layout and parking controls.  This authority is specified in the Christchurch City Council Delegations Register and specifically relates to Sections 319 and 331 of the Local Government Act 1974, and the relevant clauses of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 relating to parking restrictions.

4.5       The Council has the authority to make the decision included in the recommendations of this report in relation to the speed limit change.

Previous Decisions

4.6       The Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board has been kept informed of progress on this project through memoranda to the Board and at seminars.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

4.8       The level of significance was determined by the high level of community interest in all regeneration projects as well as the potential commercial and social opportunities provided off the back of the project. There is also a level of risk, should the project not succeed and fail to achieve its objectives.

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

5.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

·   Option 1 – Focus on Marine Parade

·   Option 2 – Focus on Brighton Mall

·   Option 3 – Upgrade Marine Parade and minor improvements to Brighton Mall (Preferred)

5.2       The following options were considered but ruled out

·   Option 4 – Do minimum

Do minimum involves maintenance by replacement of failed storm water systems, replacement planting and pavement repairs.  This has not been pursued as it does not meet the project objectives.

Options Descriptions

5.3       Preferred Option: Option 3 – Upgrade Marine Parade and minor improvements to Brighton Mall

5.3.1   Option Description:  This option is a further development of Options 1 and 2 which incorporates feedback received during consultation.  It also meets the project’s objectives of feel, connectivity and flexibility, with changes that are aimed at encouraging regeneration of the commercial area (refer to Attachment A).

Key features of the scheme include:

·    The removal of the central median on Marine Parade and a narrow two way carriageway that is flush with the adjacent parking areas and paths.

·    Wider footpaths to allow flexibility of use which may include outdoor dining areas.

·    Retention of on street car parking on this length of Marine Parade to help encourage commercial development.

·    Bus stops on Marine Parade are relocated from Hawke Street and Beresford Street.

·    A permanent reduced speed limit of 30km/h with rumble strip textured paving along Marine Parade to encourage reduced speed.

·    Retention of the marked zebra crossing at the end of the Mall.

·    Raised platforms at the intersections of Hawke Street and Beresford Street to slow vehicle speeds entering the 30km/hr zone.

·    Improved drainage, lighting and planting.

·    Improved connectivity between the foreshore and commercial centre.

·    Cultural features have been incorporated in the design to recognise the importance of tangata whenua and their mana whenua over the New Brighton area.

·    An artwork is proposed on Marine Parade in the vicinity of Brighton Mall as part of the cultural features of the project.  The artwork will be commissioned in accordance with the Council’s Artworks in Public Places Policy.  This policy requires that the Coastal-Burwood Community Board nominates a person to represent it on the Council’s Public Art Advisory Group to consider the proposed artwork.  A representative from the local community will also be represented on this group.

·    Brighton Mall upgrade is limited to enhancements of landscaping around existing palm trees, new seating and planter boxes as budget allows.  A further upgrade for Brighton Mall would need to be planned once the commercial development in the Mall is better known.

 

 

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     The flush surface between the roadway and paths creates a flexible space for Marine Parade to be closed in the future, temporarily or permanently, enabling the space to be used in different ways by community groups, events and as surrounding buildings and land uses change.

·     Creates an environment to reinforce the 30km/h speed limit proposed.  This would be further improved if traffic volumes along this section of Marine Parade were reduced.

·     Reduces obstructions for prams and wheelchairs and provides two mobility parks, one on each side of Marine Parade.

·     Improves connectivity between the beach and the commercial centre.

·     Provides wider footpaths including planting, and options for outdoor dining, seating and wind protection.

·     Provides 12 on street car parking spaces, inclusive of two mobility parks and a loading zone.

·     Introduces structures and trees to create an identity for the area.

·     Introduces an artwork on Marine Parade in the vicinity of Brighton Mall related to the cultural values of the area.

·     Introduces improvements within Brighton Mall without jeopardising future commercial developments.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     If Marine Parade is closed permanently in future, realignment works will be required at the intersections of Hawke Street and Beresford Street with Marine Parade.

·     The intersection at Hawke Street and Marine Parade has high right turning movements from Marine Parade into Hawke Street.  The proposed layout does not provide space for right turners to wait for straight through traffic to clear.

·     Pedestrians will need to cross Marine Parade in one movement, however it creates a narrow carriageway and a slower speed environment to provide a safe pedestrian environment.

·     The provision of on street parking creates a risk to other road users, particularly cyclists, created by increases in manoeuvring vehicles and car doors opening.

5.4       Option 1 – Focus on Marine Parade

5.4.1   Option Description:  This option was consulted on and focuses on Marine Parade.  It meets the project’s objectives of feel, connectivity and flexibility by narrowing the street and reducing vehicle speeds, therefore increasing safety (refer to Attachment B).

5.4.2   Features of the scheme include:

·    The removal of the central median on Marine Parade and a narrow two way carriageway that is flush with the adjacent parking areas and paths.

·    Wider footpaths to allow flexibility of use which may include outdoor dining areas.

·    A raised pedestrian crossing platform at the end of the Mall

·    Changed priorities at the intersections of Hawke Street and Beresford Street with raised platforms to slow vehicle speeds and reduce volumes of straight through traffic on Marine Parade.

·    A permanent reduced speed limit of 30km/h.

·    Removal of parking with the exception of two mobility parks, to improve pedestrian connectivity and safety.

·    Improved drainage, lighting and planting.

·    Cultural features have been incorporated in the design to recognise the importance of tangata whenua and their mana whenua over the New Brighton area.

·    Improvements to surfacing and planting in Brighton Mall

 

5.4.3   Option Advantages

·     The flush surface between the roadway and paths creates a flexible space for Marine Parade to be closed in the future, temporarily or permanently, enabling the space to be used in different ways by community groups, events and as surrounding buildings and land uses change.

·     Creates an environment that reinforces the 30km/h speed limit proposed.

·     Improves pedestrian connectivity between the beach and the commercial centre.  By reducing parking on Marine Parade a safer environment is created and the visual and physical barrier created by parked cars is removed. This makes it easier and safer for pedestrians to move between the beach and commercial core, and for cyclists travelling along Marine Parade.

·     Provides two mobility parks on Marine Parade adjacent to the playground.

·     Reduces obstructions for prams and wheelchairs.

·     If Marine Parade is closed permanently in future, the amount of work required at the intersections of Hawke Street and Marine Parade would be considered minor.

·     Provides wider footpaths including planting, and options for outdoor dining, seating and wind protection.

·     Improvements to surfacing within Brighton Mall.

5.4.4   Option Disadvantages

·     Reduces the ability for pedestrians to cross the road in two halves, however it creates a narrow carriageway and a slower speed environment to provide a safe pedestrian environment.

·     Removes 11 on street carparks including two loading zones on Marine Parade.

·     The realignment of the intersections at Hawke Street and Beresford Street have the potential to create safety concerns for cyclists.

5.5       Option 2 – Focus on Brighton Mall

5.5.1   Option Description:  This option was consulted on and focuses on the Brighton Mall area with less work on Marine Parade.  It does not meet the project objectives of feel, connectivity and flexibility (refer to Attachment C).

5.5.2   Features of the scheme include:

·    Retention of the central median on Marine Parade.

·    Replacement of the existing zebra crossing with a raised platform courtesy crossing at the end of the mall.

·    Retention of the majority of on street parking in the area

·    Changed priorities at the intersections of Hawke Street and Beresford Street with raised platforms to slow vehicle speeds and reduce volumes of straight through traffic on Marine Parade.

·    Creates an environment that reinforces the 30km/h speed limit proposed.

·    Improved lighting and planting.

·    Upgrade of the Brighton Mall surfacing with flow across Marine Parade to create a visual connection to the beach.

·    Enhanced lighting within the mall

5.5.3   Option Advantages

·     Creates an environment that reinforces the 30km/h speed limit proposed.

·     Encourages connectivity between the mall and the beach with a raised crossing point that is a visual connection to the mall.

·     Allows pedestrians to cross Marine Parade in two stages.

·     Retains the majority of parking in Marine Parade.

·     If Marine Parade is closed permanently in future, the amount of work required at the intersections of Hawke Street and Beresford Streets with Marine Parade would be considered minor.

·     Improvements to surfacing within Brighton Mall.

5.5.4   Option Disadvantages

·     Limited locations where provision is made for pedestrians to cross the road and could encourages pedestrians to use informal crossing points.

·     Reduction in parking of two spaces.

·     There is a risk that the work undertaken within the Mall will require re work as commercial redevelopment takes place due to floor level changes.

Analysis Criteria

5.6       In November 2016, this project was initiated to upgrade Brighton Mall and Marine Parade to support the objectives of the Master Plan, and the regeneration outcomes of Development Christchurch Limited’s Implementation Plan which identified the staged implementation of the Master Plan.  The project team conducted research and engaged with local residents, businesses and community group leaders to develop concepts for the project.  Out of this engagement process three objectives for this public realm project were developed, these being:

·   Feel – Expressing the feel of a beachside facility

·   Connectivity – Providing a connection between the beach and the commercial area, and

·   Flexibility – The ability to close off Marine Parade to enable future public events to occur.

5.7       The options were assessed against these three objectives.

6.   Community Views and Preferences

6.1       Submissions were received between 20 October and 12 November 2017 (23 days) and 174 groups and individuals made submissions.

6.2       Consultation material was available at the New Brighton Library, two local cafés and hand delivered to businesses and residents along the affected streets. Staff discussed the project with owners, where possible.

6.3       Staff attended a community meeting on Wednesday 1 November and the New Brighton Seaside Market on 28 October and 4 November.

6.4       A link to online information was emailed to stakeholders.

6.5       Consultation material included two scheme options and a series of multi-choice questions (see Attachments B and C for the plans).

6.6       Submitters showed no clear preference between a plan that focussed more on improving and future proofing the Marine Parade area (40%), and a plan that focussed on the beautification of the pedestrian mall area (43%).

6.7       Submitters most frequently selected ‘connectivity’ as the most important objective for the project (41%).

6.8       A full analysis of all submissions is available in Attachment D


7.   Legal Implications

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

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

8.   Risks

8.1       There is a risk of impacting summer events and businesses caused by construction works extending into the summer season. 

8.2       Residual risk rating:  The residual rating of the risk after the below treatment is implemented will be low.

8.3       The aim is to ensure all works are completed in December 2019, and in the worst case prior to the Coast to Coast event in February 2020, and the Hot Pools scheduled opening in March 2020.  Liaison with local businesses and stakeholders will continue through the construction period.  The construction period will be reviewed prior to tender acceptance to ensure the proposed timeframe is realistic and achievable.

9.   Next Steps

9.1       Following approval by the Board of the resolutions in this report, detailed design will be finalised and the construction work tendered.  The implementation time frame is currently scheduled as follows:

·   Design finalisation                                  June 2019

·   Tender                                                          July 2019

·   Construction commencement            September 2019

1.  


Waitai/Coastal-Burwood Community Board

15 April 2019

 

10. Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Focus on Marine Parade

Option 2 – Focus on Brighton Mall

Option 3 (Preferred) - Upgrade Marine Parade and minor improvements to Brighton Mall

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$3.9 million

$3.0 million

$4.3 million

Maintenance/Ongoing

The additional cost of this option is estimated to be $4350/year and would be covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and associated budgets.  The increase is mostly due to the additional street furniture.

There will be maintenance costs associated with the proposed artwork which cannot be defined at this time.

The additional cost of this option is estimated to be $8150/year and would be covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and associated budgets.  The increase is mostly due to the additional street furniture, this is higher than the preferred option due to the cost of maintaining the central landscaped median.

 

The additional cost of this option is estimated to be $4350/year and would be covered under the Area Maintenance Contract and associated budgets.  The increase is mostly due to the additional street furniture.

There will be maintenance costs associated with the proposed artwork which cannot be defined at this time.

Funding Source

FY18-FY28 LTP

$4.618 million (CPMS 37865)

FY18-FY28 LTP

$4.618 million (CPMS 37865)

FY18-FY28 LTP

$4.618 million (CPMS 37865)

Impact on Rates

Nil

Nil

Nil

Criteria 1: Climate Change Impacts

This option does not reduce emissions from vehicles

This option does not reduce emissions from vehicles

This option does not reduce emissions from vehicles

Criteria 2: Accessibility Impacts

This option provides for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired and for pedestrians between the foreshore and the commercial centre as well as along Marine Parade.

This option provides some improvement for accessibility on Marine Parade.

This option provides for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired and for pedestrians between the foreshore and the commercial centre as well as along Marine Parade.

 

 

 

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Focus on Marine Parade

Option 2 – Focus on Brighton Mall

Option 3 - Upgrade Marine Parade and minor improvements to Brighton Mall

Impact on Mana Whenua

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.

However, Mahaanui Kurataiao and Ngāi Tahu were involved with the development of the Master Plan for the purposes of recognising, protecting and supporting Ngāi Tahu values by meeting the objectives of the Mahaanui Kurataiao Iwi Management Plan.  As such, advice was sought from Mahaanui Kurataiao.  This led to Matapopore being engaged to provide cultural advice on Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, and guidance to enhance urban design and public art features.

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with key cultural values involved in the design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with key cultural values involved in the design.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with key cultural values involved in the design.

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  It does not depart from the Master Plan and Development Christchurch Limited’s Implementation Plan.

This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  It does not depart from the Master Plan and Development Christchurch Limited’s Implementation Plan.

This option is consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  It does not depart from the Master Plan and Development Christchurch Limited’s Implementation Plan.

·  


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Attachment A: Preferred Scheme - Option 3

 

b  

Attachment B: Consultation Option 1

 

c  

Attachment C: Consultation Option 2

 

d  

Attachment D: Consultation data analysis and submissions table

 

 

 

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

Neil Gillon - Senior Project Manager

Tessa Zant - Senior Engagement Advisor

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer - Investigation & Design

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Approved By

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

15.   Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Minutes - 10 April 2019

Reference:

19/449069

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee held a meeting on 10 April 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting held 10 April 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee - 10 April 2019

186

 

 

Signatories

Author

Aidan Kimberley - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 10 April 2019

 

16.   9 Cathedral Square - Structures on Roads Proposal

Reference:

19/449459

Presenter(s):

Richard Osborne – Head of Transport
Lynette Ellis – Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

 

 

1. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee received three deputations on this item:

·    Ross Gray spoke on behalf of the Christchurch Civic Trust in opposition to the proposal.

·    Mark Gerard spoke on behalf of Historic Places Canterbury in opposition to the proposal.

·    The Very Reverend Lawrence Kimberley, Dean of Christchurch, spoke on behalf of the ChristChurch Cathedral in support of the proposal.

 

 

 

2. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Original Staff Recommendations Accepted Without Change

That the Council:

1.         Notes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Policy for Structures on Roads 2010.

a.         The inconsistency is detailed as follows:

i.          Paragraph 2.2 of the Policy requires that the horizontal projection not be more than one metre.

ii.         Paragraph 3.3 of the Policy requires that all foundations be built within the private lot.

iii.        Paragraph 3.5 (i) requires that there be no other practicable option available.

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the proposal has a canopy that projects more than one metre, the supporting columns and their foundations project into legal road and there is no other practical options available.

c.         Due to the ‘one-off’ nature of the application, there is no intention to amend the Policy to accommodate the decision.

2.         Approve the application to encroach on the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square and as land owners to authorise the construction of the canopy, poles and column foundations on the area shown in Attachment A.

3.         Approve the granting of a Deed of Licence to allow the encroachment of the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square for a term of up to a maximum of 35 years and at a market licence fee determined by a registered valuer appointed by the Council. In addition to the annual licence fee the licensee would be required to pay the extra tree maintenance costs arising from the proposal.

4.         Require as part of the Deed of Licence the preparation of a Tree Protection and Management Plan by the owners of 9 Cathedral Square in respect of the three street trees on the Square, and the licensee’s compliance with that plan.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1

9 Cathedral Square - Structures on Roads Proposal

193

 

No.

Title

Page

a

9 Cathedral Square - Proposed Canopy Plan - November 2018 Version 2

208

b

9 Cathedral Square - Resource Consent Decision

211

c

Structures on Roads Policy 2010 amended 2014 and 2016

225

d

9 Cathedral Square - Urban Design Panel Memo

239

e

9 Cathedral Square - Arborists Report - 1 April 2019

242

f

9 Cathedral Square - Heritage Assessment Report

246

g

9 Cathedral Square - Submissions Table

252

 

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

9 Cathedral Square - Structures on Roads Proposal

Reference:

18/1187045

Presenter(s):

Richard Osborne and Lynette Ellis

 

 

1.   Purpose and Origin of Report

Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to review and recommend to the Council an application received for a Structures on Roads Deed of Licence in respect of the proposed development at 9 Cathedral Square.

Origin of Report

1.2       This report is staff generated in respect of the application for a Structures on Road Deed of Licence to occupy the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square.  The application has three elements (see Appendix A & Figure 1):

1.2.1   Northern canopy facing Cathedral Square includes supporting poles and foundations, therefore occupation of legal road subsoil, surface and airspace (Attachment A pp.1 & 3).

1.2.2   Western façade verandah along Strand Lane (Council owned land) airspace encroachment (Attachment A p.2)

1.2.3   Hereford Street frontage verandah; airspace encroachment (Attachment A p.2).

1.3       This report relates only to the proposed Cathedral Square canopy. The Hereford Street and Strand Lane proposals are included for information only as they comply with the Policy for Structures on Road 2010 and are being dealt with under staff delegation.

2.   Significance

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

2.1.1   The level of significance was determined by assessment and discussion.

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

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Notes that the proposal is inconsistent with the Policy for Structures on Roads 2010.

a.         The inconsistency is detailed as follows:

i.          Paragraph 2.2 of the Policy requires that the horizontal projection not be more than one metre.

ii.         Paragraph 3.3 of the Policy requires that all foundations be built within the private lot.

iii.       Paragraph 3.5 (i) requires that there be no other practicable option available.

b.         The reason for the inconsistency is that the proposal has a canopy that projects more than one metre, the supporting columns and their foundations project into legal road and there is no other practical options available.

c.         Due to the ‘one-off’ nature of the application, there is no intention to amend the Policy to accommodate the decision.

2.         Approve the application to encroach on the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square and as land owners to authorise the construction of the canopy, poles and column foundations on the area shown in Attachment A.

3.         Approve the granting of a Deed of Licence to allow the encroachment of the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square for a term of up to a maximum of 35 years and at a market licence fee determined by a registered valuer appointed by the Council. In addition to the annual licence fee the licensee would be required to pay the extra tree maintenance costs arising from the proposal.

4.         Require as part of the Deed of Licence the preparation of a Tree Protection and Management Plan by the owners of 9 Cathedral Square in respect of the three street trees on the Square, and the licensee’s compliance with that plan.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report does not support the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028).

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·     Option 1 – Approve the Deed of Licence Application (preferred option)

·     Option 2 – Refuse the Deed of Licence Application

4.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Facilitates an important new structure on Cathedral Square

·     Provides an architecturally significant building in the post-earthquake central City

·     Maintains mobility access, and access for persons with buggies, etc.

·     Does not create a significant barrier on the legal road

·     The site remains legal road

·     Creates an area for outdoor refreshments

·     Minimal cost option for the Council

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Creates a partial obstruction on the footpath (legal road) with seven supporting columns.

·     Requires the relocation of underground services to accommodate the proposed foundations on Cathedral Square. This will be at the applicant’s cost.

·     Requires minimal pruning of the three street trees opposite the site to accommodate the canopy and also during construction at the applicant’s cost.

 

5.   Context/Background

Recent History

5.1       The 9 Cathedral Square site is located on the south-western corner of the Square bordered by the Square (north), Strand Lane, (west), Hereford Street (south) and Colombo Street (east) (Figure 1). Cathedral Square is a significant Heritage Item and the proposed building also sits within the Square’s Heritage Setting.

Figure 1: 9 Cathedral Square site plan

5.2       The site formerly contained the ANZ bank building which was demolished in 2013. The site is now vacant and cordoned off.

Resource Consent (RMA/2018/1116)

5.3       This site is owned by Redson Corporation Holdings Ltd who submitted a resource consent application for redevelopment in May. The resource consent was approved in June 2018 on a non-notified basis.  A copy of the decision forms Attachment B.   

5.4       The applicant proposes to construct a new building on the site to house retail, a café, and restaurant(s). The architect is Shigeru Ban (Cardboard Cathedral) and provisionally the proposed building is named “Braided Rivers”.  This title is based on the architect’s concept to reflect Canterbury’s braided rivers and trees through the unique supporting pillars and glazed structure.

5.5       Storage space and plant will be accommodated in the upper levels of the building. The building will be largely glass fronted with a number of 10 metre high timber columns internally and on part of the legal road to support the roof. The columns will be shaped to resemble tree trunks and branches (see Figure 2). The proposal also includes several encroachments, over, on and under the legal road known as Cathedral Square, Hereford Street and the Council owned Strand Lane (not legal road).

Structures on Road Application

5.6       The Redson structures on roads’ application proposes:

5.6.1   Northern façade canopy extending 6.9 metres over the legal road along the entire length of the site. The canopy will be 10 metres high and supported by seven timber columns which will be fitted to support the canopy similar to those supporting the roof and first floor inside the building. The columns require foundations encroaching into the road’s subsoil (see Figure 1 & Attachment A).

5.6.2   The glazed verandah along the Hereford Street frontage encroaching over the legal road.

5.6.3   A glass verandah extending 1.7 metres over Strand Lane. This is not legal road, but fee simple land owned by the Council.  Strand Lane functions as a footpath between Cathedral Square and Hereford Street and is currently closed.

5.7       The proposed Hereford Street and Strand Lane verandahs conform to the Structures on Roads Policy and the District Plan as they are cantilevered from the building’s façade.

Figure 2: 9 Cathedral Square Proposal view from Cathedral Square

Legal Road Issues

5.8       Initially the applicant enquired about road stopping the section of Cathedral Square to be encroached by the canopy and its supporting structures. This was considered by staff to be unrealistic for several reasons including:

·   The road stopping process is complex, time consuming and expensive.  Hence, it may slow a decision on the proposal for a significant period of time (up to two years).

·   Given the high profile location a road stopping request would likely generate a high level of public interest, controversy and objections.

·   Under these circumstances staff could not support the applicant in pursuing this path.

5.9       The structures on roads process was suggested as a more realistic alternative to allow the approval of the encroachments with a deed of licence to allow the proposed occupation of legal road. Staff have delegated authority to approve the canopies over Hereford Street and Strand Lane as they meet the Policy’s criteria.

5.10    However, the proposed northern canopy does not comply with Structures on Roads Policy (Attachment C) due to the supporting columns and the subsoil foundations, horizontal projection. As the Council is the only decision maker that can authorise a departure from Policy the matter must be reported to the Council.

5.11    The Council has the power to lease the airspace and subsoil of legal road land, but not the surface. Generally speaking, the Council utilises a deed of licence to authorise the occupation of the road’s surface, mainly for garages in the hill suburbs. The deed of licence would be limited to the Cathedral Square encroachments.

5.12    Although the 9 Cathedral Square building is designed for a 50 year life, the Council is unlikely to issue a lease or licence for this period (this is not recommended). The law allows a lease/licence for 35 years without the need to subdivide the land. If the lease/licence for 50 years was required, the encroached road land would need to be stopped and subdivided at the applicant’s cost.

5.13    Staff intend to use a Deed of Licence to authorise the occupation of the legal road at 9 Cathedral Square limited to 35 years for the northern canopy (including the foundations and supporting columns).

5.14    The applicant has stated that the café tenant may require a separate licence to allow table and chairs under the proposed canopy on Cathedral Square. This would be dealt with separately under staff delegations.

5.15    Another issue is the need to provide sufficient space for the passage of emergency vehicles, especially Fire Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) trucks. The FENZ Guidelines states their vehicles require a minimum width of four metres and a minimum of four metres height clearance.

5.16    Staff are also concerned about the impact of the Braided Rivers canopy of the adjacent street trees.

5.17    The proposed encroachment of the northern façade’s canopy is 6.9 metres from the property’s boundary (Attachment A). Additionally, the seven proposed columns will be placed approximately three metres in the road from the property boundary. The columns’ foundations will encroach up to four metres into the road reserve’s subsoil from the property boundary.

5.18    The resource consent approval includes a condition for Redson to ensure the existing Cathedral Square paving treatment under the canopy it reinstated before the building is occupied. This will safeguard the consistent treatment for this significant heritage setting and the integration of the edges of this important public space.

LGA 2002 s.80 Inconsistent decisions

5.19    The proposal is inconsistent with the Structures on Roads Policy for the following reasons:

·   The horizontal projection of the canopy exceeds one metre;

·   The proposed canopy supporting columns foundations under the legal road reserve (the policy only permits seismic movement trenches in the subsoil); and

·   There is no other practical option available.

5.20    Section 80 allows the Council to make decisions that are significantly inconsistent with any policy, which is the case for the proposed Cathedral Square canopy.

5.21    The rationale behind this proposed inconsistency is to enable the proposed landmark building at 9 Cathedral Square which is intended to be a critical component of the central City rebuild.

5.22    In making an inconsistent decision the following must be identified:

5.22.1 The inconsistency – which are identified above.

5.22.2 The reasons for the inconsistency – the Structures on Roads policy does not permit a canopy (architectural feature category) to exceed one metre in horizontal projection. Also the policy does not normally permit foundations to encroach under the legal road. Normally the Council would expect the developer to seek an option that does not conflict with our policies, but this is considered a special case.

5.23    Due to the one-off nature of the application there is no intention to amend the Policy to accommodate the decision.  The report seek seeks the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to recommend to the Council to approve the inconsistent proposal for the encroachment into legal road at 9 Cathedral Square.

Strand Lane Land Purchase

5.24    Strand Lane is a public footpath between Cathedral Square and Hereford Street forming the western boundary of 9 Cathedral Square. However, Strand Lane is not legal road, but Council owned fee simple land.

5.25    The Council has proposed to widen Strand Lane to ease pedestrian movement between Hereford Street and Cathedral Square. It is proposing to buy strips of land (1.7 metre wide) on both sides of the laneway. The eastern strip would be acquired from Redson. Strand Lane will not be transferred from fee simple to legal road, but it will remain open for pedestrians.

5.26    The Property Unit drafted a report to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee for 12th December 2018 meeting which recommended to the Council that it acquires two 1.7 metre strips to widen Strand Lane. The Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee referred the report and a decision to the Council’s meeting on 19th December 2018.

5.27    Although the Council approved the staff recommendation to acquire the strips to widen Strand Lane, they requested that the Chief Executive investigate if there is an alternative mechanism under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act (GCRA) 2016 to achieve the benefits more quickly. If the Chief Executive is satisfied the GCRA would not deliver the benefits more quickly the process outlined by staff would be utilised.

Utilities relocation

5.28    Staff have made initial enquires to the utility companies and its own records to determine the likely need to relocate any cables and pipes to accommodate the proposed encroaching foundations. Our inquiries indicate that both Orion and Chorus cables would need to be relocated away from the encroachment area, as well as two Spark phone boxes on the Square (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Cathedral Square Trees 21/12/18

n.b. the current fenced off area includes a 3 metre strip of legal road

5.29    In addition, the Council’s Three Waters Team is responsible for freshwater, stormwater and wastewater mains which traverse the proposed subsoil encroachment area.  These will also need to be relocated away from the proposed foundations.

5.30    The applicant is aware of this issue and will need to confirm the extent of relocation works and they will also be responsible for liaising with the service providers and paying the costs of the works.

Urban Design

5.31    The initial proposal for 9 Cathedral Square has been considered by the Council’s Urban Design Panel in April (Attachment D). The panel generally welcomes the proposal particularly the boldness of the brief and its narrative for a landmark project. 

5.32    Addressing the Panel’s comments in respect of the proposed encroachments they:

5.32.1 Support the proposed northern canopy encroachment over Cathedral Square, including the “colonnade” provide the encroached area remains in the public realm and public access is unimpeded.

5.32.2 Consider the project should help to retain the cruciform of the Square by emphasising its’ edges. The Panel notes that the use of paving patterns and threshold treatments could contribute to this objective.

5.32.3 The need to provide some pedestrian shelter along Hereford Street, e.g. canopies.

5.32.4 The panel recommends further design development for this project in light of “the profile and significance of the site and the landmark potential of the design,...”

5.33    The Panel also raises some secondary recommendations relevant to this report, including:

5.33.1 There should be clear signage provided for the building.

5.33.2 Advocates a mixed use design (servicing and pedestrian activity) for Strand Lane.

5.33.3 Advices the use of Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles particularly for Strand Lane.

Street Trees

5.34    There are three street trees (Common Lime Tilia x europaea) in planters on the southern boundary of 99 Cathedral Square opposite the proposed canopy for 9 Cathedral Square, see Figures 1 & 2.

Figure 4: 9 Cathedral Square proposal from Hereford Street

 

5.35    A site meeting with the applicant and Council staff was held on 25 March 2019 to clarify the building requirements and proposed construction methodology and understand the likely effects on the trees. The Arborist’s report is attached to this report (Attachment E).  At the meeting the following points were clarified.

5.35.1 The extent and expected situation of the building frontage, pillars and edge of the building canopy in relation to the trees.

5.35.2 The anticipated construction methodologies.

5.35.3 The alteration of services in the pavement between the building and the trees.

5.35.4 The construction of building foundations and any potential changes to the pavement levels.

5.36    The Arborists report states the following:

5.36.1 It is expected that the proposed building development can proceed with minor potential effects on the trees.

5.36.2 The tree canopies are not expected to be significantly modified, as a relatively small percentage of the tree canopies will require pruning due to the change in site use, and encroachment of the building canopy and possibly the pillars.

5.36.3 It is expected that the relocation of utility services, the construction of building foundations and changes to the pavement levels can be carried out without resulting in significant adverse effects on the health of the trees.

5.37    The Arborists report also makes the following suggestions:

5.37.1 A suitably experienced and qualified arborist should be engaged by the applicant to provide tree protection advice and supervision to ensure that tree protection occurs during the building development works.

5.37.2 The applicant should produce a tree protection plan that is to be approved by the Council’s Arborist before the commencement of any site works within the vicinity of the subject trees.  The tree protection plan should be comprehensive and address all aspects of the works, including any associated utilities and infrastructure.

5.37.3 Further arboriculture assessments should be carried out prior to and during construction to confirm that the final design and construction methodologies are appropriate, and to ensure that the protection of trees is achieved.

5.37.4 The applicant’s arborist should be on site to assist within tree related investigations, provide tree protection advice and supervise any activities within the vicinity of the trees that have the potential to cause damage to the trees.

5.37.5 All tree pruning should be managed by the Council, carried out by the Council’s tree maintenance contractor, and be limited to the extent of pruning that is specified by the Council’s Arborist.

5.37.6 Any debris produced by the trees that affect the building and associated structures should be managed by the building owner.

Heritage Issues

5.38    Heritage issues have been dealt with by the Resource Consent which has been granted.  A copy of the heritage report for the resource consent forms Attachment F.

Consultation

5.39    In accordance with the legal advice the proposed encroachments were subject to a community and stakeholder process to comply with the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002. This exercise took place between Monday 18th February and Monday 11th March; the results’ analysis is found below.

Summary

5.40    Staff consider that the proposed canopy is acceptable to encroach under, on and above the legal road in front of 9 Cathedral Square, providing the deed of licence is approved by both parties. The main conditions are:

5.40.1 The Licence will be issued for a maximum period of 35 years, to avoid the need to subdivide the site.

5.40.2 The three street trees will remain in place in their raised planters although they will be subject to regular pruning to prevent undue damage either to themselves or the canopy.

5.40.3 The applicant/landowner will be required to pay a sufficient annual charge through the deed of licence to cover the cost of the accelerated tree maintenance programme.

5.40.4 The application will be required to develop and comply with a Tree Protection and Management Plan in accordance with staff guidance and the Construction Standard Specifications.

5.40.5 The applicant/landowner will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of the encroaching structures.

5.40.6 Sufficient width and height should be maintained to allow for the free flow of pedestrians and the passage of emergency vehicles.

 


 

6.   Option 1 - Approve the Deed of Licence Application (preferred)

Option Description

6.1       The proposed road encroachments recommended for a Deed of Licence is:

6.1.1   Northern façade canopy extending seven metres over the legal road along the entire length of the site. The canopy will be 10 metres high and supported by seven timber columns which will be fitted to support the canopy similar to those supporting the roof inside the building. The columns require foundations encroaching into the road’s subsoil.

Significance

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

6.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance includes a community/stakeholder consultation exercise, see section 6.5.

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. Mahaanui Kurataiao Ltd, on behalf of Ngāi Tahu, has received information about the proposal but have not responded.

Community Views and Preferences

6.5       Consultation on the proposed occupation of legal road in Cathedral Square in front of the ‘Braided Rivers’ building on 9 Cathedral Square was undertaken from 18 February to 11 March 2019. 

6.6       Consultation leaflets were posted to 25 property owners in the vicinity of 9 Cathedral Square. Emails were sent to other key stakeholders including nearby businesses, and the disability and heritage communities. Attachment G contains the details of each submission and staff comments.

6.7       The project was also discussed with St John, New Zealand Fire and Emergency and New Zealand Police. No concerns were raised by the emergency services.

6.8       Thirty six responses were received during the consultation period. Submitters were asked to provide comments. Twenty eight (78%) indicated that they supported the proposed encroachment of the building onto legal road within Cathedral Square. Two others (5.5%) gave qualified support and six (16.5%) submitters did not support the proposal.

6.9       Many of those who provided comments in support referred to the architecturally significant design of the ‘Braided Rivers’ building proposed on 9 Cathedral Square and how it would be an asset to the centre of the city and to Christchurch. Specific comments included: “The proposed structure is very beautiful and would make a stunning contribution to the urban fabric.”  Another said: “I support it, it looks fantastic.”

6.10    Most of the submitters who specifically referred to the encroachment of the canopy on legal road said the iconic glass and timber building designed by Shigeru Ban would encourage people back into the centre of Christchurch and have a positive impact on Cathedral Square.

6.11    The Chief Executive of Christchurch Airport Malcolm Johns added that Shigeru Ban had delivered a concept that is unique and special and inextricably linked to Canterbury. The vast open canopy would provide public access, shelter and shade, and provide a welcoming and hospitable view from Cathedral Square.

6.12    Six submitters did not support the canopy. The Christchurch Civic Trust and Historic Places Canterbury said the canopy should be either scaled back or reconsidered to reduce its impact on the unique cruciform shape of Cathedral Square - scheduled in the District Plan as a ‘Highly Significant’ heritage item and setting – and the three lime trees which were part of that setting. They said the proposal could set a precedent in the Square.

6.13    In the earlier resource consent process for 9 Cathedral Square, both the heritage consultant for the applicant and the Council’s heritage advisor considered that the impact of the proposed building and its northern canopy on the heritage setting in the Square would be minor.

6.14    One of the conditions of resource consent is that the existing paving treatment in Cathedral Square will be reinstated under the northern canopy of the proposed building to maintain a consistent treatment and integration with adjacent edges of the public space. The only area of public space that would not be accessible to the public once the canopy is built would be the area occupied by the lower section of the seven supporting columns.

6.15    Seven submitters, including the Civic Trust and Historic Places Canterbury, referred to the need to protect the trees and/or manage their ongoing maintenance. One respondent commented: “Under no circumstances must the proposed canopy effect the growth and shape of the three lime trees.”

6.16    The arborist has now assessed the three trees in relation to the proposed northern canopy and pillars.  The arborist has concluded that construction of the canopy and its dimensions would have a minor impact on the trees.  The arborists memo forms Attachment E of this report.    

6.17    All submitters have been advised of the outcome of the consultation and also details of this Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting.  They were also asked to indicate whether they wished to request speaking rights.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

6.18    This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and with the Structures on Roads Policy.

6.18.1 Inconsistency – there is no specific operational plan objective for this proposal

6.18.2 Reason for inconsistency – as above

6.18.3 Amendment necessary – not applicable

Financial Implications

6.19    Cost of Implementation – Not applicable the landowner of 9 Cathedral Square pays all costs

6.20    Maintenance / Ongoing Costs – landowner of 9 Cathedral Square pays re the street trees

6.21    Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

6.22    There is a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision. The Council has complied with the legal advice to consult on the proposal and the proposed Deed of Licence will be prepared by the Legal Services Unit.

6.23    This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services Unit.

Structures on Roads Policy

6.24    See paragraphs 5.19-5.23.

Risks and Mitigations

6.25    There is a risk that the building may not be constructed. This may result in the deed of licence not being needed, or that the building will remain empty for an extended period. These are risks for the landowner and developer and not directly for the Council.

Implementation

6.26    Implementation dependencies - none

6.27    Implementation timeframe - none

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

6.28    The advantages of this option include:

·   Facilitates an important new structure on Cathedral Square

·   Provides an architecturally significant building in the post-earthquake central City

·   Maintains mobility access, and access for persons with buggies, etc.

·   Does not create a significant barrier on the legal road

·   The site remains legal road

·   Creates an area for outdoor refreshments

·   Minimal cost option for the Council

6.29    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Creates a partial obstruction on the footpath (legal road) with seven supporting columns.

·   Requires the relocation of underground services to accommodate the proposed foundations on Cathedral Square. This will be at the applicant’s cost.

·   Requires minimal pruning of the three street trees opposite the site to accommodate the canopy and also during construction at the applicant’s cost.

7.   Option 2 - Refuse the Deed of Licence

Option Description

7.1       Decline the application to licence proposed legal road encroachments.

Significance

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

7.3       Engagement requirements for this level of significance are discussed in section 6.

Impact on Mana Whenua

7.4       This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value, therefore this decision does not specifically impact Ngāi Tahu, their culture and traditions. However, Ngai Tahu has been sent a copy of the road encroachment proposal, see above section 6.4.

Community Views and Preferences

7.5       See sections 6.5 to 6.17.

Alignment with Council Plans and Policies

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

Financial Implications

7.7       Cost of Implementation – no cost to the Council

7.8       Maintenance / Ongoing Costs - none

7.9       Funding source – not applicable

Legal Implications

7.10    See paragraphs 6.22 to 6.23.

Risks and Mitigations

7.11    There is a risk to the Council’s reputation and the redevelopment of the central city if the deed of licence application is refused.

7.11.1 Residual risk rating: The residual rating of the risk is high.

7.11.2 There are no planned treatments

Implementation

7.12    Implementation dependencies - None

7.13    Implementation timeframe - None

Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages

7.14    The advantages of this option include:

·   No encroachment above, on or under the legal road

·   No obstruction on the legal road

·   No need to relocate the underground services or the pay phones

·   No need for a special maintenance regime for the three street trees

7.15    The disadvantages of this option include:

·   Could lead to the failure of the proposed redevelopment at 9 Cathedral Square leaving the site vacant for a longer period.

·   Reputational risk for the Council if seen to refuse an important component of the 9 Cathedral Square development.

·   Potential for the Council to be perceived as not supporting the renewal of the central city.

·   Failure to facilitate what could be an important resource and an architecturally significant structure in Cathedral Square.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

9 Cathedral Square - Proposed Canopy Plan - November 2018 Version 2

 

b  

9 Cathedral Square - Resource Consent Decision

 

c  

Structures on Roads Policy 2010 amended 2014 and 2016

 

d  

9 Cathedral Square - Urban Design Panel Memo

 

e  

9 Cathedral Square - Arborists Report - 1 April 2019

 

f  

9 Cathedral Square - Heritage Assessment Report

 

g  

9 Cathedral Square - Submissions Table

 

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Philip Basher - Transport Policy Engineer

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Richard Holland - Team Leader Asset Planning

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

17.   Rockfall Protection Structures Committee Minutes - 9 April 2019

Reference:

19/449093

Presenter(s):

Mark Saunders – Committee and Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Rockfall Protection Structures Committee held a meeting on 9 April 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Rockfall Protection Structures Committee meeting held 9 April 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Rockfall Protection Structures Committee - 9 April 2019

264

 

 

Signatories

Author

Mark Saunders - Committee and Hearings Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

18.   Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 19 March 2019

Reference:

19/455049

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee held a meeting on 19 March 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 19 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee - 19 March 2019

268

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

19.   Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 16 April 2019

Reference:

19/455053

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee held a meeting on 16 April 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 16 April 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee - 16 April 2019

278

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

20.   Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 19 February 2019

Reference:

19/455041

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee held a meeting on 19 February 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 19 February 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Banks Peninsula Water Management Zone Committee - 19 February 2019

284

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

21.   Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee Minutes - 28 March 2019

Reference:

19/455056

Presenter(s):

Liz Ryley, Committee Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

The Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee held a meeting on 28 March 2019 and is circulating the Minutes recorded to the Council for its information.

2.   Recommendation to Council

That the Council receives the Minutes from the Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee meeting held 28 March 2019.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

A

Minutes Christchurch West Melton Water Management Zone Committee - 28 March 2019

292

 

 

Signatories

Author

Liz Ryley - Committee Advisor

  


Council

09 May 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

09 May 2019

 

 

22.   Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton: Transition of leadership and next steps

Reference:

19/368945

Presenter(s):

Brendan Anstiss, General Manager Strategy and Transformation
David Griffiths, Head of Planning and Strategic Transport
Maiki Andersen, Policy Advisor, Natural Hazards
Katy McRae, Manager Engagement

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       For the Council to decide whether to take over leadership of the Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton, and if so, the preferred process for Council to progress the adaptation planning work.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       The Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton has been led by Regenerate Christchurch since June 2017.  The work has not progressed as intended by all agencies involved, leading Regenerate Christchurch to put the project on hold and undertake a review in mid-November 2018.

2.2       The review identified issues with the timeline, scope, and governance of the project. As a result Regenerate Christchurch have recommended that Council takeover leadership of the project; that the current How Team engagement approach is maintained; and that interim solutions to address earthquake impacts are investigated separately to the longer-term adaptive planning process.

2.3       Regenerate Christchurch has also received feedback from some of the affected community highlighting concerns with outstanding earthquake impacts in relation to the estuary edge inundation protection and erosion control, the regeneration of community spaces and places, timing of the process, uncertainty and distrust of agencies.

2.4       The Council has a range of statutory responsibilities for managing coastal hazard risk which need to be considered in the future approach, including considering the current and future needs of the wider community, reliance on protection structures and progressing work to identify coastal hazards in the District Plan by mid-2020. There is also best practice guidance, technical information on future risk, and a long history of past Council decisions relating to this area.

2.5       Staff have recommended accepting leadership of the strategy and splitting this work into two concurrent projects to investigate the outstanding earthquake and regeneration needs and opportunities separately, while continuing with adaptation planning work (which will inform a coastal hazards plan change in the future).

2.6       Staff will start by undertaking further investigations, project planning, and source funding to ensure project expectations are clear and achievable, reporting back to Council in August 2019 with further options, and to initiate the adaptation planning work.  It is estimated that the additional planning work required for Council for the two concurrent projects is approximately $1m.  Currently Regenerate Christchurch are funded for this planning work.  This cost estimate excludes the physical cost of any work or adaptive approaches.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Council:

1.         Agrees to take over leadership of the work currently within scope of the Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton.

2.         Notes that assuming leadership of this project is estimated to incur a further $1m for planning work on Council, and that this will be addressed as part of the 2019/20 budget allocation and Letter of Expectations from Council and the Crown to Regenerate Christchurch.  

3.         Agrees to split the Regeneration Strategy project into two concurrent projects:

a.         Investigations into outstanding earthquake impacts and opportunities; and

b.         An Adaptation Strategy, which will inform an area-specific coastal hazards plan change.

4.         Notes that Council staff are undertaking further urgent investigations into the following and will report back in August 2019 for Council to make further decisions on the next steps for each project:

             Earthquake impact investigations

a.         Comprehensive review of past Council decisions on estuary edge actions and investigations following the earthquakes.

b.         Estuary edge current and pre-earthquake state and risk analysis – to identify any outstanding needs.

c.         Community current state analysis – to identify needs and opportunities to support or facilitate community regeneration projects.

             Adaptation investigations

a.         Risk and vulnerability assessment.

b.         Project review planning, including determining engagement approach, resourcing and establishing community and governance groups.

5.         Notes that Council remains strongly committed to the engagement model of the HOW team and will engage this team, other community groups, and the wider community in the above processes.

 

4.   Context/Background

Issue or Opportunity

4.1       The Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton has been on hold since mid-November 2018, following a decision by Regenerate Christchurch to conduct a ‘current state assessment’. This assessment included a review of its role within the project to clarify the scope, content, and nature of the regeneration advice, and resourcing, roles and responsibilities. 

4.2       Regenerate Christchurch has now completed that review and sent a report and letter with recommendations to the Mayor and Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration (Attachments A and B).

4.3       Key findings from the review (as outlined in the report from Regenerate Christchurch) include:

·        The project timeline did not sufficiently allow for community engagement or the decision-making processes of partner agencies, and was unrealistic when compared with adaptive planning processes held in other locations [in New Zealand].

·        The project scope integrated issues relating to earthquake impacts into the application of the adaptive planning process for coastal hazards. However, community representatives are seeking urgent action to address flood and erosion risk. 

·        There have been limited discussions between Regenerate Christchurch and elected members on the probable outputs of the adaptive planning process.

·        Project planning and project governance require further review and strengthening. 

4.4       The report also noted that adaptation planning to respond to coastal hazards is primarily a local government responsibility, and changes to the governance structure would better support decision making. 

4.5       In light of the review, Regenerate Christchurch recommends that leadership of the adaptive planning process is now transitioned to the Council, recognising that:

·        The How Team has delivered an engagement strategy that has been designed jointly by community and agency representatives. This commitment to putting community at the centre of the project has met with a positive response and has created a platform to build on as the project moves to the next phase of community engagement.

·        The timeline needs to be responsive to the pace of the community and the timeframes for the Council to make decisions on recommended actions. This recognises that it may take 18 months to two years to conclude the adaptation planning process, with subsequent approval and implantation steps to follow.

4.6       Regenerate Christchurch also recommends that the Council undertakes an options analysis to investigate interim solutions to address earthquake impacts in advance of entering the longer-term adaptive planning process.

Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton

4.7       Development of the Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton was set up in June 2017 as a collaborative multi-agency project led by Regenerate Christchurch.

4.8       A Regeneration Strategy is a non-statutory document that is not required or envisaged by the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 or the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The overall objective of the Regeneration Strategy was to develop a high level approach for adapting to the increased risk from natural hazards due to the effects of climate change, including sea level rise, in the coastal environment.

4.9       The project was initiated and led by Regenerate Christchurch in recognition of the impacts of the earthquakes in this area and the need to address the future use of a significant area of residential red zone land. Collaboration with the Council, Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu recognised the statutory responsibilities of the agencies and the significant cultural values of the area, the Estuary and associated wetlands.

4.10    It was intended that the Regeneration Strategy would inform changes to the District Plan either through a Regeneration Plan or Resource Management Act processes, along with other implementation actions. This was intended to be a pilot project for adaptation planning and subsequent plan changes for all coastal communities in Christchurch identified as being at risk from coastal hazards in the 2017 Coastal Hazard Assessment for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.11    Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017 recommends adaptive pathways planning is used to assess options, pathways and trigger points to manage coastal hazard risk.

4.12    Two stages were identified for the project. Stage 1 of the Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton involved creating an engagement plan for the project with members of the Southshore and South New Brighton communities (The How Team[1]). Regenerate Christchurch received the engagement plan in March 2018 which was based on the Ministry for the Environment Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017, and International Association for Public Participation principles.

4.13    On the recommendation of the engagement plan, Stage 2 of the project was divided into five phases:

·        Phase 1: introducing the conversation. This phase is now complete and included establishing the Coastal Futures Hub (82 Estuary Road), website, Facebook page and visual identity for the project; and collating draft community values.

·        Phase 2: publishing of technical information, data and mapping, as well as cultural, environmental and historical knowledge that is available for the area. This phase started in late November 2018.

·        Phase 3: coming up with options for how to respond to changes in the local environment.

·        Phase 4: evaluating those options (decision-making criteria, cost-benefit analysis and funding options, shortlist of best options).

·        Phase 5: writing the strategy - setting out the adaptive pathways, reflecting the discussions and agreements reached during the engagement process.

4.14    Work has started on designing the process for Phases 3-5 of the project.  This process has been discussed with the How Team and Community Board and they have provided feedback on engagement, and opportunities for community involvement.  However, Regenerate Christchurch put this work on hold pending the outcome of Regenerate Christchurch’s review of the project.

Community feedback on the Regeneration Strategy process

4.15    Regenerate Christchurch received informal feedback from some of the affected community through the Coastal Futures Hub and separate requests from community groups.

4.16    As part of the public feedback opportunities provided by the Coastal Futures Hub, a range of other key themes of importance to the community have been identified by Regenerate Christchurch, including:

·        Protection from flooding and coastal erosion

·        Uncertainty about the future, impact and processes

·        Perceived abandonment

·        Distrust of agencies

·        Loss of community spaces and places

4.17    Christchurch Coastal Residents United (CCRU) prepared a “proposal to Regenerate for a pre-Adaptation Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton” (Attachment C) which was publicly released on 20 February 2019, and endorsed by the Coastal Burwood Community Board on 4 March 2019.

4.18    The CCRU proposal suggests that the community may be unable and unwilling to continue talking about climate change adaptation while earthquake issues remain due to the impact this is having on social wellbeing. The proposal recommends that:

·        Regenerate Christchurch lead the “regeneration” aspect of the project as part of pre-adaptation work. This is further described as “repairing earthquake damage” and “improving the social wellbeing and resilience of the community”.

·        Once this is completed and sufficient infrastructure and protection in place, Christchurch City Council could run the adaptation planning process.

4.19    CCRU provides eight recommendations for pre-adaptation work which largely focus on:

·        Establishing estuary edge protection for flood and erosion risk through repairs, upgrades, and strengthening of existing structures, new works and enhancements to provide a cycle and walkway.

·        Making key decisions about repair and future of South Brighton.

·        Deciding which organisation is leading the process and retaining the How Team links and process.

·        Further investigations into potential funding mechanisms and adaptation to inform next steps.

4.20    CCRU has requested that:

·        The Council publicly commit to undertaking these works and other initiatives to increase community cohesion and lower stress.

·        Changes to District Plan land use zones are initiated to support the implementation of works.

·        The details of ‘pre-adaptation’ initiatives are developed and agreed between agencies and the affected communities.

·        More work is undertaken to investigate funding mechanisms for adaptation and understand international best practice.

4.21    The South Brighton Residents’ Association also wrote to Regenerate Christchurch seeking immediate solutions to earthquake impacts as a critical precursor to engagement on adaptation.

4.22    Staff note that the CCRU proposal involves significant enhancement to the level of inundation protection and erosion control that is currently or previously provided, going beyond the definition of ‘earthquake repair’ as it is presently framed. The cost, feasibility and appropriateness of the proposed works has not been investigated, or evaluated against any alternatives – however, these are matters ultimately for Council decision. 

4.23    Staff have also reviewed the need to use Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 tools to amend land zoning (including within the residential red zone) ahead of future use decisions. As the Council is able to use standard Resource Management Act 1991 processes to make any changes if needed, there is no urgency to rezone land at this stage.

Coastal planning

4.24    The Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton was intended to be a pilot project for adaptation planning with all coastal communities in Christchurch.

4.25    The options pathways identified through the adaptation planning process would inform the development of coastal hazard provisions in the District Plan in relation to the Southshore and South New Brighton area.

4.26    Once this work was completed and reviewed, it was intended to use a similar process to undertake adaptation planning and area-specific coastal hazards plan changes for the remaining communities identified as being at risk from coastal hazards in the 2017 Coastal Hazard Assessment for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

4.27    Ministry for the Environment’s Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017 recommends adaptive pathways planning is used to assess options, pathways and trigger points to manage coastal hazard risk. The District Plan is one tool to implement the preferred pathways identified through this process.

Strategic Alignment

4.28    The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) 2010 and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement (CRPS) 2013 include specific requirements for Councils to identify and manage areas potentially at risk from coastal hazards in the next 100 years through their District Plan. This includes a deadline of July 2020 for coastal hazard maps to be notified for the District Plan in Policy 11.3.1 of the CRPS.

4.29    The relevant strategic priorities to this work are climate change leadership, and ensuring informed and proactive approaches to natural hazard risks.

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

4.30.1 Activity: Strategic Planning and Policy

·     Level of Service: 9.5.7.2 Plan for a focused and expedited regeneration of the residential red zone and earthquake affected areas of the city - Southshore and South New Brighton regeneration strategy commenced.

Decision Making Authority

4.31    Regenerate Christchurch addressed its letter outlining the review and recommendations to the Council and Crown as shareholders. However, Council needs to decide whether to accept the recommendation that leadership transfers to Council.

4.32    While the project is area-specific, the implications are city-wide and require consideration of funding and resource allocation.

Previous Decisions

4.33    Council has a long history of investigations and decisions relating to the Southshore and South New Brighton Area.  As a Regenerate Christchurch project, the Regeneration Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton has not previously been subject to Council decision making and has had limited engagement with councillors.  However a number of related investigations and proposals on existing stopbanks and floodplain management in the area, estuary edge options and interventions, risk from natural hazards and options for Regeneration in the area have been identified for consideration as part of the adaptation options in the Regeneration Strategy.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

4.35    The level of significance was determined by the fact that a decision on the future options for this project is of interest to residents in a specific geographic area, but also has implications for all coastal communities within the Christchurch District. Furthermore, a decision on future options has cost implications and the potential to impact significantly on the wellbeing of affected communities.  It is also noted that a number of 2019 Annual Plan submissions have directly addressed this issue.

Options Considerations

4.36    Council responsibilities for making decisions as outlined in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) include consideration of financial implications, and whether it meets current and future needs of the community and wider District.

4.37    Some of the current affected community views have been expressed through the CCRU Proposal to Regenerate for a pre-Adaptation Strategy for Southshore and South New Brighton (Attachment C) and feedback received through the Coastal Futures Hub. As noted, a number of Annual Plan submissions have also been received and heard.  However, there is limited evidence available on the wider community needs and future generation impacts which also need to be considered.

4.38    There would be additional costs for Council to lead the project and undertake any work required which is currently unbudgeted. Regenerate Christchurch had previously budgeted $1 million to complete the Regeneration Strategy planning work which only applies to the adaptation planning, not any implementation. The Council and Crown, as stakeholders of Regenerate Christchurch, are currently contributing the funding for this work.  We will seek to redirect that funding to Council commensurate with a change of project leadership. 

4.39    These considerations need to be assessed alongside:

·        Alignment with statutory requirements - Resource management and reserve management policies and plans include a number of requirements for the Council to identify, and manage coastal hazards in the area. These include;

·     Avoiding increasing the risk in areas subject to coastal hazards over the next 100 years[2];

·     Identifying coastal hazards through provisions in the District Plan by 2020[3].

This is of particular relevance as Action 46 of the Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) directed Environment Canterbury to make any amendments to its regional plans and the CRPS that it thought appropriate to enable and support recovery and rebuilding. As a result of that direction Environment Canterbury amended the Regional Coastal Environment Plan 2003 and CRPS to direct responsibility for identifying and managing coastal hazards to the Christchurch City Council.

·        National guidance - Available national guidance for planning in areas at risk from coastal hazards which promotes adaptation planning, dynamic adaptive pathways for short term, medium term and long term risk reduction, and inclusive engagement throughout the process.

·        Technical information - Current best available technical information, the 2017 Coastal Hazard Assessment for Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, which identifies most of the area of Southshore and South New Brighton as potentially at risk from coastal hazards in next 100 years, or sooner.

·        Consistency with other Council projects – There are a range of past and current Council projects which address a similar area or issues including:

·     Climate change programme – staff are working to update the Climate Smart Strategy for the Christchurch District which will provide the high level direction for adaptation plans that will be developed for the district. Adaptation planning for Southshore and South New Brighton will provide area-specific direction and actions to give effect to the district adaptation plan.

·     LDRP 525 – following the construction of an emergency bund and associated works in the July 2017 flood event, staff have undertaken further investigations along the Estuary edge of Southshore and South New Brighton. These investigations have determined the outstanding actions required to stabilise emergency works on a short term, temporary basis, and considered potential short term associated remediation required. Resource consent is being sought at present. No proposals for additional actions were identified as part of this project.

·     South Brighton Park erosion management options – as part of implementing the South Brighton Reserves Management Plan, four options for the management of the estuary edge at South New Brighton Park have been investigated. No decision has been made on the options identified, and there may be an opportunity to include this work in a broader assessment of the estuary edge needs.

·     LDRP 97 – The Land Drainage Recovery Programme multi-hazards project is developing new technical information on floodplain management in the context of a multi-hazard environment which will be applicable to Southshore and South New Brighton and will need to be considered when developing any future management approach.

·     Estuary Edge Master Plan – This project was proposed prior the earthquakes to provide a strategic view of the recreation, conservation issues (and following the earthquakes recovery related issues) of the estuary edge of the entire Avon Heathcote Estuary. This was intended to include development and management proposals.  The wider project was put on hold while priority recovery work progressed including the South Brighton Reserves Management Plan

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

5.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

1.         Adaptation Strategy only – (Council-led) Continue with adaptation planning work, followed by coastal hazards Plan Change.

2.         Investigations and Adaptation Strategy – (Council-led) Split the Regeneration Strategy into two concurrent projects:

1)     Earthquake recovery and regeneration investigations, and

2)     Adaptation planning (followed by coastal hazards Plan Change).

3.         Risk reduction, followed by Adaptation Strategy – Split Regeneration Strategy as per CCRU request:

1)     Estuary edge inundation protection and erosion control, completed first

2)     Followed by adaptation planning

5.2       In all of the options above, the current “Regeneration Strategy” would no longer be needed as the Council would address the project issues under an “Adaptation Strategy” or a separate workstream of investigations or actions. 

5.3       The following options were considered but ruled out:

4.         Refocus coastal planning – Do not accept leadership of Regeneration Strategy and instead focus on other coastal communities.

·     Regenerate Christchurch has provided sound reasons why the project sits better with the Council such as:

a.         Existing responsibilities for undertaking coastal hazard planning;

b.         Reduced decision making steps;

c.         More oversight, ownership of, and ability to deliver any identified outcomes; and

d.         Ability to maintain leadership for the remaining duration of the project.

·     Moving the focus to other coastal communities at this stage of the process is not a viable option due to the existing investment and commitments made to the Southshore and South New Brighton communities, and the vulnerability of the area to coastal hazards and climate change which needs to be addressed.

Options Descriptions

Preferred Option: Investigations and Adaptation Strategy

5.4       Option Description: Split the Regeneration Strategy into two concurrent projects:

1)     Earthquake recovery and regeneration investigations, and

2)     Adaptation Strategy (followed by coastal hazards Plan Change)

5.5       The Regenerate Christchurch review and recent feedback from some members of the community have highlighted the continued ‘front of mind’ importance of resolving any outstanding earthquake impacts for the Southshore and South New Brighton communities. 

5.6       The reason these matters were originally included in the scope of the Regeneration Strategy was to ensure a range of options were considered, and any solutions proposed to the current risk would be consistent with any long term adaptation pathways.

5.7       It is recognised that the Regeneration Strategy has not been developed as quickly as planned, and a further 18 months to two years have been suggested to complete the adaptation planning work.

5.8       Because of these delays, changing expectations, and feedback received by Regenerate Christchurch on the impact this is having on the communities affected, Council staff consider there is a need to provide clarity at an earlier date than afforded by the adaptation planning progress.

5.9       Council staff propose to undertake urgent investigations to develop robust evidence of any outstanding needs as a result of earthquake impacts in relation to:

·        The estuary edge; and

·        Community spaces and places.

5.10    The above work is already underway.  Staff have begun the process of commissioning investigations into the current and pre-earthquake estuary edge state and risk in order to comprehensively identify the needs. This investigation will include an inventory of the current shoreline, including any structures and the design and condition of these, and maps of the inundation and erosion risk based on current estuary edge. A similar assessment will be completed for the pre-earthquake estuary edge based on historic data, in order to identify any difference in the level of risk as a result of the earthquakes.

5.11    This work does not pre-empt any Council decision on leadership of the Southshore and South New Brighton Project or guarantee that any actions will be needed as a result.  All options would require this work to be completed, in order to have a more comprehensive picture of the current state of the area.

5.12    Staff consider there may also be opportunities to support or facilitate community regeneration projects to address the loss of community spaces and places, and pyscho-social wellbeing. Information gathered from the Coastal Futures Hub can be used to help inform a needs and opportunities analysis. This will take into account existing work and projects such as the Community Facilities Network Plan and community governance and partnerships projects.

5.13    Following these investigations, if a clear need is identified, options to resolve outstanding matters would be investigated, with input from key stakeholders and the community.

5.14    Running alongside these investigations, as a separate but concurrent project (albeit with a longer planning horizon), would be the adaption planning process. Note that further work is required in project planning to ensure the project timing and process estimated by Regenerate Christchurch is appropriate and that Council is able to acquire sufficient resource and deliver on expectations.  This includes sourcing funding for the project through a revised letter of expectations from the Crown and Council to Regenerate Christchurch seeking to withhold the funds currently intended for Regenerate Christchurch for the purpose of the Southshore and South New Brighton project.

5.15    It is intended that adaptation planning would follow the best practice process recommended in the Ministry for the Environment Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017, and The How Team designed engagement process. The How Team would continue to advise on how best to engage with the affected communities and would help determine the more detailed planning required to implement the actions recommended in the engagement process.

5.16    Following the development of an adaptation strategy an implementation plan would be developed. This would, among other things, outline any District Plan changes required.

5.17    Staff would report back to Council in August 2019 with the outcome of all investigations and project planning.

5.18    Option Advantages

·        This option addresses short, medium and longer term outcomes for these communities. It responds to requests from community representatives to address earthquake impacts, without predetermining future adaptation options.

·        The investigations proposed allow a robust evidential basis to be developed for any actions and investment of Council funds.

·        It provides a clear and transparent commitment from Council to continue to develop options to reduce risk to people and property in the Southshore and South New Brighton communities.

·        Allowing the current needs to be investigated and responded to separately may improve psycho-social wellbeing of affected communities and assist with restoring relationships. It may also allow a more focussed and engaging discussion about the longer term risk once it is evident that the immediate issues are being addressed.

·        This allows adaptation planning to continue without delay in order to develop coastal hazard provisions for the District Plan. This ensures Council continues to work towards meeting its statutory requirements for coastal hazard planning.

·        This option is consistent with Regenerate Christchurch recommendations for the next steps of the project.

5.19    Option Disadvantages

·        This option will not provide immediate clarity for the community or meet some expectations of desired protection as outlined in the CCRU pre-adaptation strategy. This is due to the need to undertake robust investigations into the need and ensure any response does not pre-determine future adaptation options.

·        If a need for estuary edge actions is identified to resolve earthquake impacts, this may create an expectation of ongoing physical works to 'hold the line' along the coast in terms of erosion and flood protection. By limiting any actions to responding to existing pre-earthquake levels of risk only, and continuing adaptation planning is it hoped that a full range of options will be able to be considered for the future.

·        Both projects are likely to require significant resource and funding which is not currently allocated to this work. Withholding Regenerate Christchurch funding for the project will support the remaining adaptation planning work, but further funding may be required if Council decides to take further actions as a result of the estuary edge and community regeneration investigations.

Option 2: Adaptation Strategy only

5.20    Option Description: Council would take over leadership of the project and continue with adaptation planning work, followed by coastal hazards Plan Change.

5.21    All matters relating to earthquake impacts would be addressed as part of the adaptation planning process which may take a further 18 months to two years to complete.

5.22    Adaptation planning would follow the best practice process recommended in the Ministry for the Environment Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017, and The How Team designed engagement process as outlined in 4.13.

5.23    Following the development of an adaptation strategy an implementation plan would be developed. This would amongst other things, outline any District Plan changes, and any other actions required to implement the strategy.

5.24    Option Advantages

·        This option continues to follow the best practice process recommended by the Ministry for the Environment in the Coastal hazards and climate change guidance for local government 2017.

·        It allows strategic determination of long term approach to the area prior to implementing any solutions to earthquake impacts.

5.25    Option Disadvantages

·        This option fails to recognise and respond to local circumstances of outstanding earthquake impacts and psycho-social wellbeing risks which may warrant responding to interim needs in advance of adaptation planning decisions.

·        It is likely to create perverse outcomes if community focus remains on short term protection solutions, rather than short, medium and long term adaptation.

·        There is a risk of community opposition, lack of buy-in, lobbying and possible litigation if interim solutions are not addressed.

Option 3: Risk reduction, followed by an Adaptation Strategy

5.26    Option Description: Split the Regeneration Strategy as per CCRU request for estuary edge inundation protection and erosion control to be completed first, followed by an Adaptation Strategy.

5.27    As the cost, feasibility and appropriateness of the proposed works has not been investigated, or evaluated against any alternatives. Council would need to undertake further investigations before any work could occur.

5.28    Option Advantages: This option responds to concerns raised by some community representatives and may improve psycho-social wellbeing through delivering desired additional inundation protection and erosion control and delaying longer term adaptation conversations. It deals with the most visible issues and may allow the community focus to eventually shift to longer term conversations.

5.29    Option Disadvantages

·        This proposal would predetermine adaptation options in the short and medium term in favour of inundation protection and erosion control.

·        No consultation has been undertaken on the proposal to determine the affected or wider commun