High Street Revitalisation and Tram Extension

Hearings Panel

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

A Hearings Panel meeting will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Thursday 15 August 2019

Time:                                   9am

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

 

 

Panel

Members

Councillor Mike Davidson

Councillor David East

Councillor Deon Swiggs

 

 

9 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Aidan Kimberley

Hearings Advisor

941 6566

Aidan.kimberley@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

2.        Election of a Chairperson.................................................................................... 5

3.        Declarations of Interest...................................................................................... 5 

Staff Reports

4.        High Street (Cashel - St Asaph) and Tram Extension - High Street.............................. 5

5.        Submissions Received on the Proposed High Street Revitalisation and Tram Extension 39   

6.        Hearing of Submissions................................................................................... 243

7.        Hearing Panel Consideration and Deliberation.................................................... 243 

 

 

 


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 

1.   Apologies

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

2.   Election of a Chairperson

         At the start of the meeting a Chairperson will be elected.

3.   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.

  


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 

4.     High Street (Cashel - St Asaph) and Tram Extension - High Street

Reference:

19/609800

Presenter(s):

Neil Gillon – Senior Project Manager, Transport
Bill Homewood – Traffic Engineer (Investigation and Design)
Lynette Ellis – Manager Planning and Delivery, Transport

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to advise the Hearings Panel about the community consultation process to date and to inform it of the preferred option before it considers the views of submitters both oral and written.  The report also requests that the Panel makes a recommendation to the Council that the Council approve the preferred option.  This includes the length of High Street between Cashel Street and St Asaph Street, the length of Cashel Street between High Street and Manchester Street and the extension of the tram route from the High Street / Lichfield Street intersection, as shown in Attachment A.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       This project revitalises High Street between Cashel Street and St Asaph Street, and the length of Cashel Street between High Street and Manchester Street.  This supports the development of the central city through public realm improvements identified in the Central City Recovery Plan, helps make the city more pedestrian-friendly and safe, and assists with the greening of the central city.

2.2       The project proposes to introduce new landscaping and paving, widened footpaths and a slow street (10 km/h) with a single surface boundary to boundary (no kerbs and gutters) in the southern two blocks allowing for an informal street and future flexibility in the street layout.

2.3       The project also provides for the extension of the tram route from its current end point at the Lichfield Street / High Street intersection into Poplar Street (via Lichfield Street) and returning into High Street near Tuam Street.

2.4       Two options have been considered with the preferred option being a modified scheme from that consulted on by making minor changes in the middle and southern blocks of High Street. 

2.5       Two sub-sets of the preferred option include either adding more parking spaces in the southern block or limiting the work in the southern block to modification of the intersection with Tuam Street and repairs only to the remainder of that block.  The latter option will maintain the existing speed limit of 30 km/h in the southern block.

2.6       Community views on the project were sought through engagement with key stakeholders and public consultation was undertaken during May and June 2019.  Submissions were received from 90 individuals and groups.

2.7       The Council’s 2018-2028 Long Term Plan identifies the work under two separate projects, High Street (Hereford –St Asaph) (ID# 18342) and Tram Extension – High Street (ID# 45318).  The budget provision for the each project is $6,717,013 (High Street) and $2,984,400 (tram extension).


 

2.8       The extension of the tram route is contingent on agreement for the Council to purchase land at 146 High Street.  Negotiations are progressing with the body corporate representing the individual land owners.  The tram extension will not proceed until the land is finally purchased.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hearings Panel:

1.         Receives the information within and attached to this report and considers the written and oral submissions made as part of the public consultation process.

2.         Recommends that the Council approves

a.         the scheme design of the network transformation project for High Street as detailed in Attachment A, and

b.         the extension of the tram route from the High Street / Lichfield Street intersection

3.         Recommends to Council that the detailed traffic resolutions required for the implementation of the project are brought back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, or appropriate delegated committee for approval at the end of the detailed design phase, prior to the beginning of construction.

4.   Context/Background

Opportunity

4.1       This project provides the opportunity to support the development of the central city through public realm improvements identified in the Central City Recovery Plan.

4.2       It also provides for a connection between key cycle routes in Ferry Road and Tuam Street.  The project helps make the central city more pedestrian friendly and safe and assists with the greening of the central city.

Strategic Alignment

4.3       This project consists of two separate projects within the 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan:

·   Project ID 18342 – High Street (Hereford – St Asaph)

·   Project ID 45318 – Tram Extension – High Street

4.4       Note that the title for Project ID 18342 provides for the length of High Street between Hereford Street and St Asaph Street.  However, the length between Hereford Street and Cashel Street has been undertaken separately under Project ID 34418 – Paving Central City, City Mall and High Street.

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

4.5.1   Activity: Active Travel

·     Level of Service: 16.0.10 Improve the perception that Christchurch is a walking friendly city.

4.5.2   Activity: Roads and Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.8.0 Maintain the condition of footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.2.0 Maintain roadway condition to an appropriate national standard

Decision Making Authority

4.6       The Council has authority in accordance with the Delegations Register, Part D, Sub-part 1, section 2, to make decisions regarding roads within the Central City Area.

Previous Decisions

4.7       No previous decisions in relation to this project have been made by the Council or its committees.

4.8       The Mayor, and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee were informed of progress on this project by way of a memorandum on 28 February 2019 (ref. 19/214690).

4.9       The Council was also briefed on consultation options at its meeting on 9 April 2019 where it recommended the option which would proceed to public consultation.  The Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board was briefed on the project at a seminar on 29 April 2019.

4.10    On 15 December 2016 the Council resolved that the trees outside the Duncan’s Building could be removed to allow work to proceed on the construction of the building (ref. Council resolution CNCL/2016/00484).  The resolution stated that “approval of the removal is based on an agreement by the developer with Section 6 Option 1” of the report to Council.  The resolution also noted that a detailed design will come back to the Council prior to the trees being re-planted in that section of High Street.  Section 6 of the report to the Council recommended that the trees would be removed and replanted.  The recommendation also stated that all costs are to be borne by the applicant; and that the trees are to be replaced on the completion of the redevelopment with an appropriate species of tree for the uniqueness of the location and in keeping with the heritage status of the buildings.  The developer has agreed to replace the trees, at their cost, in accordance with the Council’s approved design.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

4.12    The level of significance was determined by the level of community interest city-wide apparent in this project, and social benefits.  The level of impact on those people affected is expected to be high, especially during construction.  However, the central city area affected by the works is small in relation to the size of the Christchurch District.

4.13    The Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and its transport chapter provides the strategic direction for the proposed design changes.

4.14    The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflect the significance assessment.  Engagement with key stakeholders, including property and business owners, and the tram operator, commenced early in the project to inform the development of scheme plans.


 

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

5.1       The following reasonably practicable options were considered and are assessed in this report:

·   Option 1 – Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension (Preferred)

·   Option 2 – Tram extension and asset repairs

5.2       Alternative options can be considered for the southern block between Tuam Street and St Asaph Street, as subsets of Option 1:

·   Option 1A – Full revitalisation with some additional parking

·   Option 1B – Do minimum in the southern block of High Street

5.3       Option 1 provides for the tram extension.  The extension is contingent on the Council reaching an agreement for purchase of the land required to form the tram track loop between Poplar Street and High Street.  Negotiations are progressing with the body corporate representing the individual land owners.

Option Descriptions

5.4       Preferred Option: Option 1 - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension, including minor changes

5.4.1   Option Description:  This option provides for the full revitalisation of High Street between Cashel Street and St Asaph Street, and Cashel Street between High Street and Manchester Street, and the extension of the tram route.  It differs from the consultation plan by minor changes to the three blocks of High Street in response to submissions received (refer to Attachment A).  These changes are detailed in Section 6.14.

Key features of the scheme include:

·    Revitalises the three city blocks through new landscaping and paving, widened footpaths and a slow street (10 km/h) with a single surface boundary to boundary (no kerbs and gutters) in the southern two blocks allowing for an informal street and future flexibility in the street layout

·    Enhanced streetscape to provide a more attractive place for people to visit and do business

·    Widened footpath where possible to cater for increased foot traffic including a large widened pedestrian amenity area outside the Duncan’s Building in the southern block of High Street

·    Creates an entry to the central city from Lyttelton, Sumner and Ferrymead following a diagonal route first used by Māori, represented in the streetscape by cultural markers and tohu (signs, symbolic representations) which represent Ngāi Tūāhuriri hapū sites of significance and associations with travel

·    Safe cycle link between the cycleway on St Asaph Street and Tuam Street, and the Heathcote Expressway on Ferry Road

·    Accessible for all users

·    Courtesy crossings to provide safe and accessible mid-block crossings of High Street

 

·    Provision of time-restricted parking spaces as detailed in the table below:

 

Northern Block

Middle Block

Tuam Street (additional)

Southern Block

Total

P60 metered

27

8

3

12

50

P30 metered

0

1

0

0

1

P30 metered or P5 free

0

3

0

0

3

Mobility

2

1

0

1

4

Loading Zone

2

1

1

1

5

Motorcycle

0

2

0

1

3

Total

31

16

4

15

66

                                                 

·    Simplified intersection at Tuam Street reducing number of signal poles from 19 to six

·    Additional street trees and a large rain garden to provide amenity and environmental benefits

·    Southern block one-way from Tuam Street to St Asaph Street allowing for vehicle exit into St Asaph Street to be reinstated

·    Tram route extended along Lichfield Street, Poplar Street and back up High Street.

5.4.2   Option Advantages

In addition to the scheme features listed above, this option:

·     Provides a focus on pedestrian amenity by providing widened footpaths, slower vehicle speeds, and additional seating and landscaping

·     Safety for pedestrians

·     Support for future development

·     Is supported by 40 submitters with 23 submitters requesting less emphasis on parking.

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Reduces the number of on-street parking spaces by 27.  This reduction is measured from Option 2 – the number that will exist once all construction barriers have been removed.

5.5       Option 1A – Full revitalisation of the southern block of High Street with additional parking.

5.5.1   Option Description:  This option provides for the full revitalisation of High Street between Tuam Street and St Asaph Street, as for Option 1, but with additional parking as requested by 25 submitters (refer Attachment B).

The changes in the key features from Option 1 are:

·    Removal of the courtesy crossing and one street tree in the vicinity of 165 High Street

·    Increased parking numbers – 16 60-minute metered parking spaces, one loading zone, one mobility park, and one park for motorcycles, as detailed in the table below:

 

Southern Block

 

Additional parking over Option 1

P60 metered

16

 

4

Mobility

1

 

0

Loading Zone

1

 

0

Motorcycle

1

 

0

 

5.5.2   Option Advantages

In addition to the features listed above and in Option 1, this option:

·     Provides additional parking in the southern block to meet the request of 19 submitters who state that parking is required to ensure the survival of new businesses in this block, while maintaining the objective of this being a key pedestrian and cycle street

·     Flexibility of the single surface treatment enables additional parking to be implemented in future without significant construction works and associated costs.

5.5.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Removes additional pedestrian amenity space on the footpath, a courtesy crossing and one proposed street tree as a result of the additional parking provision, compared to Option 1

·     Removes 23 parking spaces in the southern two blocks (from what will exist once all existing barriers are removed) – the tram extension and asset repairs option (Option 2).

5.6       Option 1B – Do minimum in the southern block of High Street

5.6.1   Option Description:  This option provides for repairs to be undertaken in the southern block between Tuam Street and St Asaph Street to make good damage caused as a result of the earthquakes and from subsequent demolition works, and includes the proposed changes at the Tuam Street / High Street intersection.  The repair work includes footpath resurfacing and road repairs where required (refer Attachment C).

Work is required at the Tuam Street intersection to enable removal of the extra traffic signals and permits operation of the intersection in a safe manner with the modified street layout in the middle block.

The speed limit within the southern block would be maintained at 30 km/h.

5.6.2   Option Advantages

·     Allows for the safe and efficient operation of the Tuam Street / High Street intersection

·     Reduces the extent of disruption to businesses and users of the southern block of High Street.  Note that repair works will still cause some disruption

·     Retains most of the existing parking spaces, except where modifications are required at the Tuam Street / High Street intersection

·     Provides an estimated saving to this project in the Transport Programme budget in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for the High Street project (CPMS 19342) of $1.0 million.

5.6.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Does not meet the Council’s objective for the southern block of High Street of supporting the development of the central city through public realm improvements identified in the Central City Recovery Plan

·     Does not provide for a connection between key cycle routes in St Asaph Street, Tuam Street and Ferry Road

·     Does not help make this block of the city more pedestrian friendly and safe nor does it assist with the greening of the central city

·     Does not provide the exit for traffic from High Street into St Asaph Street

·     Following repair work, the slope on the footpath between the Ara building boundary and the kerb will be greater than permitted in the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standard.  In order to meet the standard, the kerb will need to be constructed at a higher level requiring significant reconstruction of the adjacent roadway.

·     Removes 11 parking spaces in the middle block (from what will exist once all existing construction barriers are removed).

5.7       Option 2Tram extension and asset repairs

5.7.1   Option Description: This option provides for the tram extension, and for repairs to be undertaken in the three blocks to make good damage caused as a result of the earthquakes and from subsequent demolition works.  This includes kerb and channel repairs, footpath resurfacing, and road repairs where required (refer Attachment D).

5.7.2   Option Advantages

·     The tram extension is completed once the land purchase is finalised

·     Reduces the magnitude of disruption to businesses and users of High Street and Cashel Street.  Note that repair works, however, will cause disruption

·     Retains all existing parking spaces, except where crossings for new buildings are required in the future

·     Provides an estimated saving to this project in the Transport Programme budget in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan for the High Street project (CPMS 19342) of $5.9 million.

5.7.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Does not meet the Council’s objective of supporting the development of the central city through public realm improvements identified in the Central City Recovery Plan

·     Does not provide for a connection between key cycle routes in Ferry Road and Tuam Street

·     Does not help make the city more pedestrian friendly and safe nor does it assist with the greening of the central city

·     Does not provide the exit for traffic from High Street into St Asaph Street

·     Following repair work, the slope on the footpath between the Ara building boundary and the kerb will be greater than permitted in the Council’s Infrastructure Design Standard.  In order to meet the standard, the kerb will need to be constructed at a higher level requiring significant reconstruction of the adjacent roadway.

Analysis Criteria

5.8       A multi-criteria analysis was undertaken for the options providing revitalisation of the three blocks of High Street (Option 1 and Option 1 with 1A).  The analysis considered the following factors:

·   Transport

·     Alignment with strategies

·     Pedestrian, vehicle and parking provision

·     Cycle facilities

·   Tram

·     Alignment with strategies

·     Operational requirements

·     Future proofing of tram route

·   Amenity and context

·     Alignment with Streets and Spaces Design Guide

·     Vitality / amenity / footfall

·     Corners of the frames

·     Flexibility / future proof urban environment

·     Urban gateway concept

·     Greening the city

·     Ecology

·     Street trees

·     Impact on heritage settings

·   Stakeholders

·     Alignment with community expectation

·     Alignment with adjacent owners and occupiers

·   Risks associated with the timing of project delivery

Options Considerations

5.9       Options 1 meets the objectives of the Council’s Long Term Plan.

5.10    Option 1A amends Option 1 by adding extra on-street parking in the southern block of High Street.

5.11    Option 1B is an alternative amendment to Option 1 providing for the Tuam Street / High Street intersection to be modified but the length of High Street south of this to be repaired only.  The revitalisation of the southern block of High Street would be reprogrammed, depending on the availability of budget or, alternatively, not undertaken.  This option would not meet the objectives of the Long Term Plan.

5.12    Option 2 does not provide for revitalisation of High Street or the block of Cashel Street but provides for their repair only.  It includes the extension of the tram route in High Street.  The revitalisation of High Street and Cashel Street would be reprogrammed, depending on the availability of budget or, alternatively, not undertaken.  This option would not meet the objectives of the Long Term Plan.

6.   Community Views and Preferences

6.1       Property owners, businesses and tram operators were advised of the revitalisation and tram extension project in March 2018. Various concepts to upgrade the street were discussed with them at drop-in sessions.

6.2       When the project area was expanded in January 2019 to include the Cashel Street block, other stakeholders who were most affected were invited to view possible options.

6.3       Proposals were discussed with the Joint Technical Review Panel including representatives from Environment Canterbury, the New Zealand Transport Agency and Ōtākaro Limited.

6.4       Emergency services representatives raised no issues when they viewed the concept plans at a meeting to discuss scheme designs for central city projects.

6.5       Staff twice presented concepts to the Central City Transport Liaison Group comprising representatives of a wide range of city groups with an interest in transport.

6.6       Formal consultation on a preferred plan opened on 14 May and closed on 10 June 2019. Ninety one submitters commented on the High Street revitalisation and 61 on the tram extension. 

6.7       The consultation report for the High Street revitalisation and tram extension project is Attachment E.

High Street revitalisation

6.8       People were asked for their comments on the project.  Of the 90 individuals and organisations who provided feedback on the revitalisation consultation plans:

·   40 indicated that they supported or generally supported the proposals. 

·   44 indicated they did not support the plan or had concerns.  Twenty three submitters, including nine who supported or generally supported the proposals, said there should be less emphasis on cars and on-street parking in the plans.  Another 25 said more parking was needed to support local businesses.  (An alternative plan was submitted for the southern block from Tuam Street to St Asaph Street.)

·   Six did not indicate their view of the overall plan.

6.9       What submitters liked about the plan:

·   Inclusion of more trees and planting

·   Wider footpaths

·   Lower speed limit – 10 km/h

·   Simplified Tuam Street intersection

·   No kerbs in two blocks


 

 

6.10    Key issues raised:

·   Too much emphasis on cars at expense of other types of travel

Too much parking

Should be pedestrianised

·   Not enough parking to support businesses

Alternative plan for southern block submitted

Alternative parking variations for mid-block

·   Concern regarding cycle facilities

·   Need to reflect climate emergency

·   Defer works to allow time for new businesses to establish in the southern block of High Street

·   Impact of construction on operation of businesses.

Tram Extension

6.11    The proposed extension of the tram route along Lichfield Street and Poplar Street then back up High Street was supported by 50 (81 per cent) of the 62 submitters who provided feedback.

6.12    Tram operator Christchurch Attractions & Hanmer Attractions Tourism Group said this loop would provide additional safety features and operational advantages than extending the tram into the next block between Tuam Street and St Asaph Street.  These include the ability to operate trailers and avoid the need to move the tram in a reverse direction on the track as it does currently

6.13    The tram proposal is subject to the purchase of land at the corner of Poplar Street and High Street.

Changes presented to the Hearings Panel as a result of consultation

6.14    The preferred Option 1 incorporates the following minor changes as a result of the feedback received on the consultation plan:

Northern block

·   Loading zone outside 198 High Street moved eastward to accommodate a future possible footpath crossing

·   Commemorative plaque retained in its present location in paving in City Mall.

Middle block

·   One additional park for motorcycles located outside 174/176 High Street

·   60 minute metered parking outside C1 café and opposite 180 High Street changed to shorter term parking (30 minute metered parking and 5 minute free parking)

·   Corgis placed on a raised plinth to lessen the hazard of tripping and at the request of the artist.


 

Southern block

·   Motorcycle parking space opposite 155 High Street replaced by 60 minute metered car park

·   Additional motorcycle parking space located outside 143 High Street

·   Street furniture relocated from outside 139 High Street to provide access to the building from High Street

·   Cycle crossing across St Asaph Street added.

6.15    Staff have prepared two alternative options for the southern block between Tuam Street and St Asaph Streets, as subsets of Option 1

·   Option 1A – Full revitalisation with additional parking (four P60 parking spaces), detailed in Attachment B and in 5.5 of this report.

·   Option 1B - Do minimum.  Work would include road repairs and changes at the Tuam Street / High Street intersection, detailed in Attachment C and in 5.6 of this report.  The speed limit would remain at 30 km/h.

6.16    Staff have also included a tram extension and asset repairs option (Option 2).  This is detailed in Attachment D and 5.7 of this report.

7.   Legal Implications

7.1       There is not a legal context, issue or implication relevant to this decision, beyond the normal decision-making considerations for the Council under the Local Government Act 2002.

7.2       This report has been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit.

8.   Risks

8.1       The inherent risks associated with this project are considered to vary between high and moderate, dependant on the options chosen.  The risks are tabulated below with the associated consequences and proposed mitigation measures.

8.2       Option 1: Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension (Preferred)

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Disruption to businesses

Disruption to the operation of businesses on High Street during the construction period

Daily engagement with the business owners to identify concerns and inform on construction activities.

Undertake some construction during hours that businesses are not open.

Criticism from business and property owners about loss of on-street parking

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement about the benefits of increased pedestrian amenity.

Public criticism

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement.

 

8.3       Option 1A - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension including additional parking

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Disruption to businesses

Disruption to the operation of businesses on High Street during the construction period

Daily engagement with the business owners to identify concerns and inform on construction activities.

Undertake some construction during hours that businesses are not open.

Public criticism

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement.

 

8.4       Option 1B – Revitalisation of the northern and middle blocks of High Street, repairs to southern block of High Street, and tram extension

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Disruption to businesses

Disruption to the operation of businesses on High Street during the construction period

Daily engagement with the business owners to identify concerns and inform on construction activities.

Undertake some construction during hours that businesses are not open.

Public criticism

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement.

Public criticism about not delivering the project as proposed

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement.

Footpath outside Ara has slope to kerb greater than the Infrastructure Design Standard

Difficulty for use by some pedestrians

Lift the adjacent kerb and channel to meet the maximum cross-fall specified in the Infrastructure Design Standard.  Increases cost of repair option.

 


 

8.5       Option 2 – Tram extension and asset repairs

Risk

Consequence

Mitigation

Disruption to businesses

Disruption to the operation of businesses on High Street during repair works and tram track extension

Daily engagement with the business owners to identify concerns and inform on repair activities.

Undertake some work during hours that businesses are not open, if possible.

Public criticism about not delivering the project as proposed

Negative media, dissatisfied stakeholders

Proactive and early communications and engagement.

Footpath outside Ara has slope to kerb greater than the Infrastructure Design Standard

Difficulty for use by some pedestrians

Lift the adjacent kerb and channel to meet the maximum cross-fall specified in the Infrastructure Design Standard.  Increases cost of repair option.

 

9.   Next Steps

9.1       Following the Hearings Panel’s consideration of this report and submissions received, the Hearings Panel may seek further information of the project team, if it considers it necessary, and then report to the Council for a decision on its recommended option.  It is desirable that the Council will consider the Hearings Panel’s report at its meeting on 12 September 2019.

9.2       Upon approval of the recommended option, the project team will commence detailed design.

 


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

10. Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension (Preferred)

Options 1 & 1A - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension including additional parking

Options 1 & 1B - Revitalisation of the northern and middle blocks of High Street, repairs to southern block of High Street, and tram extension

Option 2 - Tram extension and asset repairs

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

High: $6,100,000

Tram: $2,960,000

High: $6,100,000

Tram: $2,960,000

High: $5,100,000

Tram: $2,960,000

High: $200,000

Tram: $3,250,000

Maintenance/Ongoing

An additional $11,200 per annum. 

This is due to additional street furniture, street trees, green surfacing and landscaping areas.

This will need to be provided for in the planning of future Long Term Plans.

An additional $11,100 per annum. 

This is due to additional street furniture, street trees, green surfacing and landscaping areas.

This will need to be provided for in the planning of future Long Term Plans.

An additional $10,100 per annum. 

This is due to additional street furniture, street trees, green surfacing and landscaping areas.

This will need to be provided for in the planning of future Long Term Plans.

$1,000 per annum.

This has been allowed for in ongoing maintenance budgets.

Funding Source

2018-2028 Long Term Plan

High (ID# 18342): $6,717,013

NZTA has indicated that this project is unlikely to receive subsidy.  In line with Council resolutions, staff will report back to Council prior to construction, if subsidy is not confirmed.

Tram (ID# 45318): $2,984,400

The tram project is not eligible for NZTA subsidy and has not assumed subsidy in the LTP.

2018-2028 Long Term Plan

High (ID# 18342): $6,717,013

NZTA has indicated that this project is unlikely to receive subsidy.  In line with Council resolutions, staff will report back to Council prior to construction, if subsidy is not confirmed.

Tram (ID# 45318): $2,984,400

The tram project is not eligible for NZTA subsidy and has not assumed subsidy in the LTP.

2018-2028 Long Term Plan

High (ID# 18342): $6,717,013

NZTA has indicated that this project is unlikely to receive subsidy.  In line with Council resolutions, staff will report back to Council prior to construction, if subsidy is not confirmed.

Tram (ID# 45318): $2,984,400

The tram project is not eligible for NZTA subsidy and has not assumed subsidy in the LTP.

2018-2028 Long Term Plan

High (ID# 18342): $6,717,013

Subsidy for this work would be claimed under the NZTA maintenance and renewals work category.

Tram (ID# 45318): $2,984,400

The tram project is not eligible for NZTA subsidy and has not assumed subsidy in the LTP.

Impact on Rates

Rates will be impacted by 0.0023% from the year of delivery.

Rates will be impacted by 0.0023% from the year of delivery.

Rates will be impacted by 0.0021% from the year of delivery.

Nil.

Criteria 1 - Climate Change Impacts

Reduction of on-street parking provision thus reducing emissions from vehicles in High Street.

Additional street planting.

Cycle lanes to encourage more travellers to cycle

Some reduction of on-street parking provision thus reducing emissions from vehicles in High Street.

Additional street planting.

Cycle lanes to encourage more travellers to cycle

Minor reduction of on-street parking assisting in reducing emissions from vehicles in the middle block of High Street.

Some additional street planting.

This option does not reduce emissions from vehicles nor provide additional street planting.

Criteria 2 - Accessibility Impacts

This option provides for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired, for pedestrians and cyclists

This option provides for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired, for pedestrians and cyclists.  Accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists is not as good as for Option1.

This option provides for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired, for pedestrians and cyclists in the northern and middle blocks of High Street.

Footpath resurfacing will result in the cross-fall of the footpath on the Ara side being more than accepted in the Council’s Construction Standard Specification.

This option does not provide for improved accessibility for the mobility impaired, nor for pedestrians and cyclists.  However, footpath repairs will benefit pedestrians by creating an even surface.

Footpath resurfacing will result in the cross-fall of the footpath in the southern block on the Ara side being more than accepted in the Council’s Construction Standard Specification.

Criteria 3 - Health & Safety Impacts)

Reconstruction of the footpaths will reduce health and safety impacts that currently exist.

Cycle connections between St Asaph Street and Tuam Street will provide safer access for cyclists.

Reconstruction of the footpaths will reduce health and safety impacts that currently exist.

Cycle connections between St Asaph Street and Tuam Street will provide safer access for cyclists.

Reconstruction of and repairs to the footpaths will reduce most health and safety impacts that currently exist.

The cross-fall on the footpath on the northeast side of the southern block may be a health and safety issue for the mobility impaired.

No provision of a safe cycle connection between St Asaph Street and Tuam Street will disadvantage cyclists.

Repairs to the footpaths will reduce most health and safety impacts that currently exist.

The cross-fall on the footpath on the northeast side of the southern block may be a health and safety issue for the mobility impaired.

No provision of a safe cycle connection between St Asaph Street and Tuam Street will disadvantage cyclists.

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension (Preferred)

Options 1 & 1A - Full revitalisation of High Street and tram extension including additional parking

Options 1 & 1B - Revitalisation of the northern and middle blocks of High Street, repairs to southern block of High Street, and tram extension

Option 2 - Tram extension and asset repairs

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.  However, Matapopore has been engaged to provide cultural advice on Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, and guidance to enhance urban design.

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with key cultural values involved in the design.

This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.  However, Matapopore has been engaged to provide cultural advice on Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, and guidance to enhance urban design.

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with key cultural values involved in the design.

This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value.  However, Matapopore has been engaged to provide cultural advice on Ngāi Tahu values, narratives and aspirations, and guidance to enhance urban design.

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input is high with cultural values involved in the design.

This option does not involve a significant decision in relation to ancestral land or a body of water or other elements of intrinsic value. 

For this option, Matapopore Charitable Trust input will not be utilised.

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

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

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

This option is partially consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies.  Adoption of these in the southern block may be delayed and not fulfilled.

This option is not consistent with Council’s Plans and Policies unless revitalisation occurs in the future.


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

High Street - Option 1 Plan

26

b

High Street - Option 1A Plan

30

c

High Street - Option 1B Plan

32

d

High Street - Option 2 Plan

34

e

High Street Revitalisation and Tram Extension Consultation Report

35

 

 

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

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

William Homewood - Traffic Engineer - Investigation & Design

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

  


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 

5.     Submissions Received on the Proposed High Street Revitalisation and Tram Extension

Reference:

19/876504

Presenter(s):

Aidan Kimberley – Hearings Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1          The purpose of this report is to collate for the consideration of the Hearings Panel the submissions received in response to the consultation on the proposed High Street revitalisation and tram extension project.

1.2          The Local Government Act 2002 requires, as one of the principles of consultation, that “the views presented to the local authority should be received by the local authority with an open mind and should be given by the local authority, in making a decision, due consideration” (section 82(1)(e)).

1.3          The Hearings Panel should consider all submissions received, the enclosed staff report and other relevant considerations in its deliberations, before deciding its recommendation to the Council, which the Council may accept or reject.

1.4       The volume of written submissions from submitters who asked to be heard in person by the Hearings Panel, and the schedule of submitters booked to speak at the meeting is included as Attachment A.

1.5       The volume of written submissions from submitters who indicated that they wished to speak to the Hearings Panel, but subsequently decided they no longer want to speak is included as Attachment B.

1.6       The submissions received from submitters who indicated in their submission that they did not wish to be heard is included as Attachment C.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Hearings Panel:

1.         Receives the written submissions received on the High Street revitalisation and tram extension project.

 

              

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Volume of Written Submissions from Submitters Wishing to be Heard

42

b

Volume of Written Submissions from Submitters No Longer Wishing to be Heard

119

c

Volume of Written Submissions from Submitters Not Wishing to be Heard

147

 

 


Hearings Panel

15 August 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


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Hearings Panel

15 August 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


Hearings Panel

15 August 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator 


Hearings Panel

15 August 2019

 

 

6.      Hearing of Submissions

 

Submitters who indicated that they wished to be heard in person will present to the Hearings Panel. 

A schedule of presenters can be found at the beginning of the volume of “Heard Submissions”.

 

 

 

7.      Hearings Panel Consideration and Deliberation