Christchurch City Council

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Thursday 29 August 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

 

 

23 August 2019

 

 

 

Principal Advisor

Mary Richardson

Acting Chief Executive

Tel: 941 8999

 

 

Samantha Kelly

Committee and Hearings Advisor

941 6227

samantha.kelly@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

29 August 2019

 

 


Council

29 August 2019

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

3.        Public Participation........................................................................................... 4

3.1       Public Forum...................................................................................................................... 4

3.2       Deputations by Appointment............................................................................................... 4

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

Staff Reports

5.        2019/20 - Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund........................................ 5

6.        Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project................................ 187

7.        Capital Endowment Fund Applications: 2019/20 Round 1...................................... 367

8.        Community Resilience Partnership Fund............................................................ 377

Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

9.        Victoria Street - Revitalisation.......................................................................... 403

Staff Reports

10.      2019/20 Strategy and Policy Forward Work Programme....................................... 473   

 

 

 


Council

29 August 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.  

Deputations on the Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project report were received by the Council on Thursday 22 August 2019.

4.   Presentation of Petitions

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

 


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

5.     2019/20 - Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund

Reference:

19/810698

Presenter(s):

Sam Callander - Community Funding Team Leader

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider and allocate the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF).

2.   Significance

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

2.2       The level of significance was determined by considering the size of the recommended allocations and the nature of the projects and initiatives recommended for funding.

2.3       The community engagement and consultation requirements apply to the operation of the Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund as a Council level of service through the Long Term Plan. The community have not been consulted on the individual recommendations allocating the funding.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Consider all applications and recommendations for the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund.

2.         Approve allocations from the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund detailed in Attachment C of this report subject to any changes at the meeting.

3.         Approve $260,339 from the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund to the eight Community Early Learning Centres as below:

a.         Hoon Hay Community Preschool - $19,000.

b.         Moa Kids Early Childhood Centre - $32,889

c.         New Beginnings Preschool Inc - $39,600

d.         New Brighton Community Preschool and Nursery - $18,200

e.         Redwood Early Childhood Centre - $36,000

f.          Springs Community Early Learning Centre - $36,750

g.         St Albans Community Preschool Inc - $35,000

h.         Woolston Preschool - $42,900

4.         Refer application 59459, The Volunteer Army Foundation for consideration from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

5.         Approve the transfer of any remaining unallocated monies from the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund to the 2019/20 Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund.

 

4.   Key Points

4.1       This report provides information to Councillors on the applications received for the 2019/20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund (SCF).

4.2       Information regarding Council Funding Outcomes and Priorities and Strengthening Communities Fund Criteria is attached as Attachment A.

4.3       A covering Strengthening Communities Fund application index page is attached as Attachment B.

4.4       The decision matrix which outlines the projects and funding sought from General Applications is attached as Attachment C. The matrix details the applicant grant requests, core organisation details, staff assessments and grant recommendation to the Council.

4.5       A sector breakdown listing all applications by sector group with charts illustrating amounts requested by sector and amounts recommended by sector is attached as Attachment D.

4.6       All projects have been subject to a staff collaboration and have been assessed as being either Priority 1,2,3 or 4  projects with staff funding recommendations for the consideration of the Council.

4.7       Projects were prioritised as follows:

4.7.1   Priority 1 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes significantly to Funding Outcomes and Priorities.  Highly recommended for funding.

4.7.2   Priority 2 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to Funding Outcomes and Priorities. Recommended for funding if budget is available.

4.7.3   Priority 3 - Meets all eligibility criteria and contributes to Funding Outcomes and Priorities but to a lesser extent than Priority 2 applications.  Not recommended for funding.

4.7.4   Priority 4 - Meets all eligibility criteria and has minimum contribution to Funding Outcomes and Priorities or insufficient information provided by applicant (in application and after request from Advisor) or other funding sources more appropriate.  Not recommended for funding.

Major Organisations

4.8       In the 2018/19 Strengthening Communities round, eight (8) Major Organisations were granted multi-year funding for two years (2018/19 and 2019/20) totalling $1,139,788. The eight Major Organisations are listed below.

Name

Project

Granted from the 2019/20 SCF

Christchurch Operatic (Showbiz)

Operational Costs

$77,641

The Court Theatre Trust

Operational Costs

$110,000

New Zealand Opera

Professional and Outreach Projects

$77,641

Orana Wildlife Trust

Orana Wildlife Park

$200,000

Ferrymead Park Ltd

Operational Costs

$150,429

Christchurch Symphony Trust

Concerts and Community Engagement Programmes

$291,154

Christchurch Community House – Te Whakaruruhau ki Otautahi Trust

Shared Resources and Facilities

$87,346

Mayor’s Welfare Charitable Trust

Mayors Welfare Trust

$145,577

Total

 

$1,139,788

 

Community Early Learning Centres

4.9       There are currently eight ELCs that rent Council owned facilities. Applications to the SCF for the rental charge invoiced by the Council have been received from each ELC.  The total for these applications is $260,339.  Staff recommend a total grant payment of $260,339 for the eight ELCs as listed below.

Early Learning Centre 2019/20

Requested

Recommended

Hoon Hay Community Preschool

$19,000

$19,000

Moa Kids Early Childhood Centre

$32,889

$32,889

New Beginnings Preschool Incorporated

$39,600

$39,600

New Brighton Community Preschool and Nursery Inc.

$18,200

$18,200

Redwood Early Childhood Centre

$36,000

$36,000

Springs Community Early Learning Centre

$36,750

$36,750

St Albans Community Preschool Incorporated

$35,000

$35,000

Woolston Preschool Inc.

$42,900

$42,900

Total

$260,339

$260,339

 

4.10    On 13 December 2018 Council resolved that staff and the Ministry of Education (MoE) engage with each ELC and report back to the Council with options regarding ongoing support for each ELC.

4.11    Staff and MoE have completed the engagement with each Community ELC.  On 23 July 2019 staff and MoE provided a summary of findings to the Funding Review Working Group in order to keep the Working Group informed and seek any feedback prior to a briefing with Council.

4.12    On 30 July 2019 staff discussed the findings and Working Group feedback at a Council workshop.  As a result staff will prepare an options report to Council covering Council’s medium and long term approach to supporting community ELC’s.

4.13    The staff recommendation to the Council in this report to approve 2019/20 grants to the eight ELCs will give certainty to these organisations, while the options report required by the Council covering Council’s medium and long term approach to supporting community ELC’s is under development and Council consideration.  A report on Community ELC’s is scheduled to be considered by Council on 12 September 2019.


 

Multi-year Commitments

4.14    There are four pre-existing commitments totalling $160,000 that have been granted from the 2019/20 Metropolitan SCF budget by the Council. The Council approved in the 2018/19 SCF funding round for multi-year funding for two years to the below organisations.

Name

Project

Approved for Period

Granted from the 2019/20 SCF

Age Concern Canterbury

Social Connection Coordinator

2018/19 and 2019/20

$45,000

Anglican Care Community Development

Operational Costs

2018/19 and 2019/20

$20,000

The Physics Room Trust

Operational Costs

2018/19 and 2019/20

$25,000

Canterbury Society of Arts Trust

Developing Creative Practice and Participation

2018/19 and 2019/20

$70,000

Total Multi-year Commitment

$160,000

 

Summary

4.15    There are 159 general applications for consideration from the 2019/20 Metropolitan SCF budget. The total requested amount from these applications is $5,128,319. Staff recommend a total grant payment of $1,603,490.

4.16    Applications from The Parenting Place Charitable Trust (59186) and Papanui Youth Development Trust (59383) will be considered for funding from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund at the meeting of the Council on 22 August 2019. If successful in gaining funding from this source these applications will be withdrawn from consideration from the 2019/20 Strengthening Communities Fund.

4.17    No ineligible applications were received.

4.18    Budget and allocations for 2019/20 Community Funding are summarised below.

 

Total Funding Budget 2019/20

$7,203,100

Total Community Board Funding Allocation  2019/20

$3,153,311

 

 

Total Metropolitan Funding Allocation 2019/20

$4,049,789

2019/20 Pre-existing Commitments

 

Metropolitan Discretionary Response Fund Allocation

$135,000

Major Organisations

$1,139,788

Early Learning Centres

$260,339

Multi- Year Commitments (Yr 2 of 2)

$160,000

Community Resilience Partnership Fund Final Contribution

$750,000

 

 

Balance Available for General Applications

$1,604,662

Staff Recommendations (as set out in Attachment C)

$1,603,490

Additional Balance for Allocation

$1,172

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Council Funding Outcomes and Priorities and Strengthening Communities Criteria

10

b

Attachment B - Application Index Page 2019-20

14

c

Attachment C - 2019-20 Metropolitan Strengthening Communities Fund Decision Matrix

22

d

Attachment D - 2019-20 SCF Sector Breakdown

180

 

 

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

Nicola Thompson - Community Funding Advisor

Bryony Armstrong - Community Funding Advisor

Ruby Sione - Community Funding Advisor

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

Michael Down - Finance Business Partner

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 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


 

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


Council

29 August 2019

 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

6.     Southshore South New Brighton Earthquake Legacy Project

Reference:

19/967966

Presenter(s):

David Griffiths - Head of Planning and Strategic Transport
Jane Morgan – Principal Programme Advisor
Peter Kingsbury – Principal Advisor, Natural Resources

 

 

Secretarial Note: The Council heard deputations on this item at its meeting on 22 August 2019. The  item was then referred to this meeting.

1.   Purpose of report

1.1       This report proposes options for Council consideration that respond to earthquake legacy issues relating to the Southshore and South New Brighton estuary edge.  These options were informed by feedback from the Southshore and South New Brighton communities.

2.   Executive summary

2.1       On 9 May 2019 Council requested staff to report back to the Council by August 2019 on options to address earthquake-legacy issues relating to the estuary edge in Southshore and South New Brighton.

2.2       The history of decision-making in these communities has led to a perceived erosion of trust in agencies and it is intended that the commitment to resolution of earthquake legacy issues will create a stronger platform on which to base future engagement on planning for adaptation to climate change.

2.3       As a first step, the community identified a set of community needs related to earthquake-legacy issues, which primarily focused on protection from increased flood risk and increased erosion, as well as a need for increased certainty about their future.

2.4       Options to address these earthquake-legacy issues were identified, and then assessed to ensure they met the project scope.  A cross-agency evaluation group gathered information on the practicality and feasibility of each of eight shortlisted options.  The eight options and accompanying feasibility and practicality information were presented to the community.

2.5       Community feedback through a Community Assessment survey was sought to understand which of the possible options best addressed community needs.  This feedback, along with other community feedback has significantly shaped the options recommended in this paper.

2.6       Options recommended for Council decisions are:

·    Area-wide - development of a continuous walkway/cycleway immediately adjacent to the estuary edge, where appropriate, from Evans Ave to the south end of Southshore.

·    South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street - a stopbank condition assessment and an update of previous investigations into the life-safety risk of flooding from a breach or overtopping of the stopbanks between Pages Road and Bridge Street.

·    South New Brighton – south of Bridge Street - the establishment of new setback bunds with a range of hard and soft erosion management methods between Bridge Street and the boardwalk adjacent to the South New Brighton Park.

·    Southshore - the investigation of immediate and longer term erosion options (including options for the edge structures) with a report back to Council in early 2020 on any proposed options to address earthquake-legacy related erosion as well as flooding mitigation e.g. bund alignment.

 

 

3.   Staff recommendations

That the Council:

Area wide

1.         Requests staff to develop a continuous walkway/cycleway immediately adjacent to the estuary edge, where appropriate, including renewal of the existing Estuary Walkway from Evans Ave to Ebbtide Street in South New Brighton and from Ebbtide Street through the red zone to the south end of Southshore. The track improvement component of the work will be funded by $150,000 of the regeneration initiatives capital funding in 2019/20.

a.         Notes that funding for any proposed bund track for Southshore will be sought as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan Process.

South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street

2.         Requests staff to undertake a stopbank condition assessment and an update of previous investigations into the life-safety risk of flooding from a breach or overtopping of the stopbanks between Pages Road and Bridge Street to account for the updated 2018 high tide statistics and to report the result of that investigation to the Council and the community.

South New Brighton – south of Bridge Street

3.         Requests staff to establish new setback bunds with a range of hard and soft erosion management methods between Bridge Street and the boardwalk adjacent to the South New Brighton ParkThese will be funded by $750,000 of the regeneration initiatives capital funding in 2019/20.

a.         Notes that the remaining $1.85-$2.35 million will be sought as new funding through the 2020/21 Annual Plan and the 2021-31 Long Term Plan processes.

Southshore

4.         Requests staff to investigate immediate and longer-term erosion options in Southshore (including options for the privately owned edge structures).

a.         Notes that in response to community feedback, flooding mitigation options considered for Southshore are deferred until the outcome of this investigation.

b.         Notes that options identified through the Southshore investigation to address earthquake-legacy related erosion as well as flooding issues will be presented to Council in 2020.

Other recommendations

5.         Resolves that the investigations referred to in resolutions 2 and 4 above for north of Bridge Street and for Southshore estimated at $400,000 will be funded from the $1.3 million regeneration funding available for these areas.

6.         Notes that Council staff will report back to Council in early 2020 on the proposed approach and timing of adaptation planning and coastal hazards plan changes.

7.         Notes that Council staff will manage the above actions approved by Council using standard project controls and within existing staff delegations.

8.         Notes that the implementation of some of these actions is subject to obtaining necessary resource consents from Environment Canterbury and/or the Christchurch City Council.

 

4.   Context/Background

4.1       On 9 May 2019 the Council resolved [CNCL/2019/00074] to assume leadership of the work within scope of the Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration Strategy and established separate projects to address:

a.    earthquake legacy issues; and

b.    the development of an adaptation strategy for climate change.

4.2       Council staff were instructed to report back to the Council in August 2019 as follows: “Estuary edge current and pre-earthquake state and risk analysis – to identify outstanding community needs. This will include specific actions and opportunities to mitigate inundation and erosion that addresses earthquake legacy.

Background

4.3       The suburbs of Southshore and South New Brighton are home to over 4,800 people.  The 2010 and 2011 earthquakes significantly impacted the area, and 195 properties along the estuary edge were eventually zoned red with 192 properties now owned by the Crown.  The red zoning announcements for Southshore were delayed several times signalling the first of a series of delays in decisions relating to the area.

4.4       Residents perceive other communities to have received earthquake legacy repairs, including protection against hazards, at a faster pace than they have.  Residents also raised concerns about their ability to rebuild or extend their homes and this was partly addressed in 2018 with amendments to the Residential Unit Overlay policies and rules in the District Plan.

4.5       Regenerate Christchurch initiated a Regeneration Strategy for the area in 2017 to address both earthquake legacy and longer term adaptation for climate change and coastal hazards.  Regenerate Christchurch supported the communities to develop a co-created approach to engagement but the project did not progress further, and Regenerate Christchurch handed responsibility for delivery to Council in 2019.

4.6       This history, inter alia, has eroded trust between communities and agencies creating challenges for engagement.  It is intended that resolution of the earthquake legacy issues will create a stronger platform of trust on which to base the adaptation planning discussions.

4.7       Note that the boundaries for this project are from Rodney Street to the south end of Southshore.

Earthquake-related changes to the estuary edge

4.8       The earthquakes caused the estuary edge land to drop in some places.  There was also some damage to Council-owned and privately owned erosion and flood management structures. The Council is appropriately maintaining its structures but the state of the privately owned ones is uncertain. There is further erosion and increased flood risk in some areas and a loss of vegetation.

4.9       Stormwater-related flooding of streets in large tide events occurred prior to the earthquakes due to the limitations of the low-lying, gravity-fed stormwater infrastructure.  Earthquake-related land subsidence and the increased occurrence of higher tide events have further exacerbated these issues.

4.10    There has been a decline in salt marsh and loss of vegetation due to land subsidence, changes in water levels and increased salinity.  The quality of walking tracks has decreased and edge tracks in South New Brighton Park and Bridge Reserve are more prone to flooding.

4.11    Earthquake-changes to the three sub-areas of South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street, South New Brighton – south of Bridge Street, and Southshore are below.

South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street (Rodney Street to Bridge Street)

4.12    The land in this area has lowered, particularly on the landward side of the stopbank, and in Bridge Reserve which has experienced increased flooding.  There are isolated areas where erosion has increased.

4.13    The existing stopbanks were raised and repaired and now provide protection to houses to a level of R.L 11.4m[1].  However, in the unlikely event that the stopbanks were to overtop or breach, the potential depth of floodwaters would be higher due to the lower land in this area.

South New Brighton - south of Bridge Street (Bridge Street to Caspian Street)

4.14    The South New Brighton Park between Beatty Street and the boardwalk is the part of the project area that is worst affected by flooding and erosion.  While this area experienced flooding and erosion prior to the earthquakes, land subsidence and slumping of existing erosion management structures has led to further erosion.  In some places, up to 12 metres of the edge has eroded.

4.15    North of Beatty Street the land on the edge has lowered and the flood risk to nearby low-lying properties has potentially increased.

 

Southshore - South of Caspian St

4.16    Outside of the areas immediately adjacent to the estuary edge, the land in this area was generally raised in the earthquake.  However, damage to existing private protection structures and red zone clearance works have lowered and changed the estuary edge in places.  Many of the private structures continue to provide some erosion and flood management but other sections are unstable and exposed building materials create health and safety risks and impact negatively on the visual amenity of the area.  There are some pockets where erosion is occurring immediately behind the private structures however the extent of erosion is typically less than in South New Brighton Park and is primarily affecting the edges of red zone land.

4.17    The bund constructed by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) largely manages the increased flood risk to low lying properties and has a crest level generally of R.L. 11.2m with some lower points.

Council response to date

4.18    Council have responded to damaged infrastructure since the earthquakes through:

·    repair and strengthening works to existing stopbanks and bunds, and emergency works as required.

·    repair and some upgrading of stormwater and wastewater systems.

·    repair of Park facilities such as jetty, carpark, boat ramp, and boardwalk, as well as ongoing maintenance to remove unsafe trees.

4.19    A map outlining works undertaken by Council since the earthquakes appended as Attachment A.

4.20    The key outstanding issues relate to areas where no previous flood management was provided and the land has dropped, or where erosion structures have moved in the earthquakes and erosion mitigation could now be improved, and where structures that were privately-owned are now damaged.

5.   The process to identify options to address earthquake legacy issues

5.1       The diagram below sets out the phases of the Earthquake Legacy Project which was established to respond to the Council resolution [CNCL/2019/00074].

Identifying community needs

5.2       Workshops were held with residents and community representatives to identify community needs relating to the estuary edge, and these were themed, published for feedback and finalised with the support of the How Team.  The full list of community needs are appended in the SSSNB Assessment Report (Attachment B), with the overall themes listed below.

·    Flooding - Protection from flooding from the estuary.

·    Erosion - Protect estuary edge from further erosion across whole project area.

·    Stormwater - A well-constructed, monitored and maintained stormwater system that functions in the coastal environment, and provides adequate drainage.

·    Recreation - Use and enjoyment of the natural and built environment.

·    Maintenance and levels of service - Well-maintained and cared for parks and public spaces that demonstrate a commitment to the community, and allow for safe enjoyment of the area.

·    Information - Provision of clear, transparent, timely and easily accessible information about all Council technical reports and decision-making related to current and future hazards.

·    Certainty and wellbeing - Prioritise actions and activities that improve individual, family and community wellbeing.

Pre and post-earthquake state

5.3       Jacobs Ltd. were commissioned by the Council to undertake an inventory of the location, type and condition of structures on the estuary edge as well as any pre- and post-earthquake changes to the physical state of the estuary edge.  The Jacobs Ltd. report Avon-Heathcote Ihutai Estuary Edge Condition Inventory (July 2019) and appendices are available at Attachments C and D.  Community knowledge was sought to inform the development of this inventory, with residents providing pre and post-earthquake photographs of the edge.

5.4       Prior to this project, Jacobs Ltd. was also commissioned to identify the mechanisms of erosion operating along the shoreline of South New Brighton Park and present management options and this report has also informed this project.  The South New Brighton Park Erosion report (May 2019) is available at Attachment E.

5.5       Note that the Council resolution of 9 May 2019 [CNCL/2019/00074] requested that a ‘risk assessment’ is undertaken.  It has not been possible to deliver this within the project timeline and therefore the proposed flood and erosion options are based on changes in ground levels, damage to structures, and observed erosion.  Where these changes have been identified, options that offer equitable levels of protection as other parts of the Ihutai/Estuary have been proposed.  It is possible that the level of protection proposed in some cases may be greater than the need based on the level of risk to properties and facilities.

Identification, assessment and prioritisation of options

5.6       A long list of 66 options and actions to address the community needs was identified with 29 of these options proposed by community members and the remainder proposed by Council staff.

5.7       In the First Assessment, the long-listed options were assessed against the project scope to ensure they related to the estuary edge, met a community need, and did not compromise longer term adaptation planning.  At this point, some options were merged and others were identified as out of scope and set aside to be considered in the longer-term adaptation planning process or other processes as appropriate.

5.8       In the Second Assessment, staff from Council, Environment Canterbury, Mahaanui Kurataiao, and Land Information New Zealand evaluated the grouped options to understand their practicality and feasibility based on relative levels of efficiency, effectiveness, cost and statutory alignment.  This process established a short-list of eight options for feedback through the Community Assessment.

5.9       Christchurch Coastal Residents United contracted the Brighton Observatory of Environment and Economics (BOEE) to develop a range of options to be considered as part of this process and while a final report has not been received, Council staff included BOEE’s draft options in the assessment process.

5.10    A more in-depth Assessment Report is attached to this paper to provide greater detail about how the options were identified, assessed and evaluated, as well as the outcomes of the assessment. 

Community Assessment

5.11    The Council held a Community Assessment between 1-6 August 2019 for the Southshore and South New Brighton communities to understand each of the eight short-listed options and provide feedback on their preferences through a survey to inform Council decision-making.  The options were presented across the three sub-areas as well as one area wide option and several proposed ‘do anyway’ options.

5.12    Information about the shortlisted options included details about the practicality and feasibility of options, including the consenting pathway, length of time to initiate works and estimates of cost.

5.13    This information was available online and through a drop in seminar session which attracted around 70 members of the community.  Community members were invited to complete surveys to provide feedback about their preferred options.  Survey findings are presented below, and these findings significantly shaped, and modified the options recommended in this report.

 

6.   Options analysis including community preferences

6.1       In the Community Assessment a total of eight options were presented across the three sub-areas as well as one area wide option and several proposed ‘do anyway’ options.

6.2       The sections below outline by sub-area the options proposed, the community preferences as expressed in the Community Assessment, and the resulting option recommended in this report with an explanation of how that option may have been amended in response to community feedback.

Area-wide

6.3       The indicative locations for the recommended options for South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street, South New Brighton – south of Bridge Street, and Southshore are on a map available at Attachment F.

6.4       The proposed option was: Continuous walkway/cycleway and enhanced recreational areas.

6.5       This option addressed the following community needs:

·    Recreation - Use and enjoyment of the natural and built environment.

·    Maintenance and levels of service - Well-maintained and cared for parks and public spaces that demonstrate a commitment to the community, and allow for safe enjoyment of the area.

Community views and preferences

6.6       In total, 77 residents provided feedback with 87 percent agreeing that it responded to the earthquake legacy issues identified by the community.  In addition, 96 percent agreed that it would improve the quality of life for their family and 91 percent agreed that it would provide them with a sense of confidence in their immediate future in the area. 

 

Recommended area wide option: Continuous walkway/cycleway and recreational areas.

1.1.1          Option Description:

6.7       This option would provide a continuous walkway/cycleway immediately adjacent to the estuary edge where appropriate from Evans Ave to the south end of the red zone in Southshore.  Sections of the existing walkway would be raised, repaired, re-surfaced, widened or rerouted.  It is anticipated that sections of the track will continue to flood on occasion.  The track would be finished to the Council standard track design and in the future, this cycleway could link to the Te Ara Ōtākaro trail.

6.8       Where new bund tracks are proposed, for example on the proposed new setback bund in the South New Brighton Park, it is anticipated that existing tracks on the estuary edge will remain in place to provide alternative routes.

6.9       This option includes community-led enhancement of the Southshore and South New Brighton red zone land with the addition of picnic tables for people to gather, native plantings, and spaces to learn about and observe nature.  This could be enabled when the community are ready, through a transitional use and grant application process alongside professional support to develop a landscape plan.

Cost, funding, and implementation

6.10    It is proposed that $150,000 of the regeneration initiatives funding allocation of $900,000 capital in 2019/20 is used for existing track improvements.  New tracks on bunds are included in the costs for bund construction as outlined in the relevant sections of this paper.  It is important to note that capital costs for the Southshore component of the track (estimated at $450,000 in FY20/21) will need to be included in a funding request in the 2020/21 Annual Plan depending on any further decisions relating to Southshore (see below).

6.11    This option would be broken into smaller projects, and staged so that some work could occur in this financial year.  The initial focus would be on the north of Bridge Street area with the timing of work in the South New Brighton and Southshore sub-areas dependent on other options in this paper.

Consenting and policy direction

6.12    Any consent application would require detailed assessment of the effects on the natural environment and cultural values, and consideration of alternatives; and ways in which effects would be managed during construction (eg sediment and erosion prevention).  This option would likely require restricted discretionary or discretionary resource consents from Environment Canterbury and Council for construction works.

6.13    We assess this option as being reasonably consentable as it accords with relevant objectives and policies by promoting recreation and access, and it re-routes tracks away from areas at risk from flooding and erosion.

South New Brighton - north of Bridge Street

6.14    The proposed option was: Phase One: Investigate stopbank condition and safety.

6.15    This option addressed the following community need:

·    Ensure that stopbanks are well-constructed and do their job of keeping people safe from flooding.

Community views and preferences

6.16    In total 45 residents provided feedback with 54 percent agreeing that this option responds to the earthquake legacy issues identified by the community.  Comments sought assurance that any remedial actions would be addressed, and raised concerns that this work had not progressed more rapidly.

 

Recommended option for north of Bridge Street: Phase one: Investigate stopbank condition and safety.

1.1.2          Option description:

6.17    This option involves a stopbank condition assessment and a report on any remedial actions required.  The site inspection would:

·    assess the condition of the stopbanks between Pages Road and Bridge St,

·    identify any areas of erosion,

·    record the height of the top of the stopbank crest, and

·    report on any actions required to Council and to the community.

6.18    In addition, previous investigations would be updated to assess the current life-safety risk of flooding from a breach or overtopping of the stopbanks between Pages Road and Bridge St to account for the updated 2018 high tide statistics.  We will engage with the wider South New Brighton community to explain the way that life safety is assessed and to explain the findings of this updated investigation.

6.19    It is important to note that Council is not aware of any failures in these stopbanks since the earthquakes.  These stopbanks were designed and constructed to the level of RL11.4m which means that a 1 in 50 year flood event is generally contained.  Council takes an active approach to managing stopbanks with regular maintenance, investigations and physical works as required.

Cost, funding, and implementation

6.20    The estimated cost of this investigation is approximately $100,000 which can be drawn from the regeneration initiatives allocation of $1.3 million operational fund for planning work.

6.21    The site inspection is already underway and will be completed within six months with the updating of life safety risk completed within six months to a year.

6.22    Funding for any remedial actions identified within the inspection may not currently be available within existing budgets and therefore additional funding may be required.

Consenting and policy direction

6.23    No consent is required.  This option gives effect to policies in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement regarding understanding life safety risk.  The process of investigation does not raise issues, however actions resulting from the investigations may have cultural implications.

South New Brighton - south of Bridge Street

6.24    The proposed options were:

·   New bund close to the estuary edge with repair, replacement or infill of existing erosion protection structures, or

·   New setback bunds (25 – 100 m from the edge) with repair, replacement or infill of existing erosion protection structures, or

·   New setback bunds (25 – 100m from the edge) with re-contoured and planted estuary edge to develop sloping beaches.

6.25    These options addressed the following community needs:

·    Protection from flooding from the estuary.

·    Protect estuary edge from further erosion.

·    Protect the South New Brighton Park and Playground, South New Brighton School, South New Brighton Tennis Club, South Brighton Playcentre and the South Brighton Holiday Park from increased flood risk.

Community views and preferences

6.26    In total 110 residents provided feedback on these options with a preference for the set-back bund and sloping beach across all three questions asked.  Sixty-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that this option responds to the earthquake legacy issues identified by the community, 66 percent agreed that this option would improve their quality of life, and 65 percent agreed that this option provided the community with a sense of confidence in their future.

6.27    However, a significant number of respondents also supported the option of a bund close to the edge with repair of the existing protection structures (53 percent agreed or strongly agreed that this option responds to the earthquake legacy issues identified by the community). 

 

Recommended option for South of Bridge Street: New setback bunds with a range of hard and soft erosion management methods.

Technical approach to managing erosion and flood risk in this area.

6.28    Erosion to the estuary edge can be managed using a range of methods, including ‘soft’ methods such as recontouring and regrading to develop a sloping beach, or ‘hard’ methods including the use of gabion baskets and reno mattresses.  These erosion methods are not designed to also manage flood risk; their function is to reduce wave energy. 

6.29    Flood risk is managed through a range of methods, and in this area bunds are optimal in this instance as they can be setback to allow room for a range of erosion methods. 

6.30    Both the erosion management methods and the flooding managed methods proposed below are effective even if located separately.

Option description:

6.31    The recommended option is a hybrid of the options proposed through the Community Assessment to reflect the range of community preferences for both hard and soft erosion management, with sloping beaches prioritised where possible. 

6.32    A setback bund is required in order to provide room for the community preference for beach re-contouring and planting.  A setback bund is also likely to be more easily consented, is less expensive to build and maintain, and is more consistent with policy direction in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement than an estuary-edge bund.  Compared with an edge bund, a set-back bund would integrate well into the landscape and enable easy access to the estuary edge.

6.33    The recommended option proposes that bunds to a height of R.L. 11.4m would be constructed 25-100 metres back from the estuary edge in locations from south of Bridge St to the boardwalk.  The bunds would reduce the risk of flooding to houses and community facilities in South New Brighton Park including the campground and tennis club but would not protect the track from occasional flooding.  The bunds would not need to cross community facilities such as the tennis club.  The bunds may not be continuous as they would be merged into existing high ground.  The bunds could be planted and have a path on top.  Some tree removals are likely with this option.

6.34    Erosion management would focus on the area between the jetty and boardwalk, where failed erosion management structures are located.  An investigation would determine which erosion management technique is optimal in each section of the estuary depending on the condition of the edge, the distance of existing structures from the edge, the desired height, and the magnitude of wave energy.  It is likely that across the length of this area a higher proportion of hard methods may be used.

6.35    In sections where the wave energy is lower, soft methods are appropriate so the edge would be re-contoured or regraded to construct and plant a sloping beach which could involve importing beach material as well as appropriate beach renourishment and planting.  Existing structures would be removed or covered.  A sloping beach would provide increased recreational and amenity value as well as enhanced estuary access and it would allow for natural processes and planting, as well as the opportunity to enhance the saltmarsh environment.

6.36    Other hard methods for erosion management could be used elsewhere and would include a combination of replacement, repair, or in-fill of existing reno mattresses and gabion baskets or loose cobbles.

 

Cost, funding and implementation

6.37    The total estimated cost of this option is $2.6 - $3.1million ($1 - $1.5million for the bund (including tracks), and $1.6million for erosion management).  It is proposed that $750,000 of the regeneration initiatives funding allocation of $900,000 capital in 2019/20 is used for this option, with the remaining $1.85-$2.35 million to be sought as new funding through the 2020/21 Annual Plan and 2021–31 Long Term Plan (LTP) processes.  This means that an initial phase of the work can be completed in the near future with the balance of the project subject to additional funding requests.

6.38    It is anticipated that investigations, consenting, design, and impact assessments could be completed within a period of 1-2 years with construction undertaken in stages over a twelve-month period.  There may be opportunities to construct the bund in advance of the erosion management.

Consenting and policy direction

6.39    Any erosion management works would likely require non-complying resource consents from both Environment Canterbury and the Council due to the location of works in the Coastal Marine Area, and the potential for adverse effects on the coastal environment.  A setback bund will still require resource consent but this may be more easily granted due to the location of the bund setback from the edge, which will have less of an impact on the natural environment and cultural values.  Objectives and policies in the Regional Coastal Environment Plan and Christchurch District Plan seek to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on values of high significance in the coastal environment such as ecological, physical, natural character and cultural values.  Any consent application would require a detailed assessment of the impacts on the coastal environment, why the works are necessary and consideration of alternatives.

6.40    The proposed option will partially meet direction in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement to reduce reliance on hard engineering and protect and restore natural defences (to the extent that soft erosion management methods are proposed) and locate new infrastructure away from areas at highest risk (i.e. the bund).  Any resource consent application will need to consider how well the activity aligns with this direction.

6.41    Similarly the proposed option is partially consistent with the South New Brighton Reserves Management Plan which directs stopbanks to be setback from the river and estuary edge and promotes natural erosion defences.  While further assessment will be required to determine if any changes are required to the Reserves Management Plan to accommodate erosion management methods, no changes would be required for the bund to proceed.

Southshore

6.42    The proposed options to address flooding were:

·    New set-back bund adjacent to houses along the residential red zone, or

·    Improve existing Land Information New Zealand bund.

6.43    These options addressed the following community need:

·    Protection from flooding from the estuary.

6.44    The proposed option to address erosion was: Phase One: Investigate erosion and private structures.

6.45    This option addressed the following community needs:

·    Protect estuary edge from further erosion.

·    Repair of estuary-edge erosion protection, taking into consideration the protection that was previously afforded by structures that were privately owned.

Community views and preferences

6.46    In total, 141 residents provided feedback on the Southshore options and a large proportion of the community disagreed that either of the proposed flooding options met their needs. 

6.47    While 44 percent of respondents agreed that the proposed setback bund met their needs, 47 percent disagreed.  Only 31 percent agreed that improving the existing bund met their needs, while 59 percent disagreed.

6.48    A higher proportion of respondents (66 percent) agreed that the proposed option to address erosion through an initial investigation met their needs, and 29 percent disagreed.

6.49    Sentiments raised at the Community Assessment drop in, and reinforced by emails from the Southshore Residents Association and the Christchurch Coastal Residents United noted the following issues:

·    An engineered bund is sought, but not set back as proposed and instead located where the LINZ bund is currently positioned.

·    Erosion protection should be integrated with any proposed flooding solution.

·    Residents are seeking immediate solutions to erosion and flooding for now and into the future.  However, there is some appetite for Council to undertake further investigation and then provide the community with an integrated flooding and erosion proposal.

6.50    While the proposed bunds were an appropriate response to the increased flood risk created by earthquake legacy issues, Council staff recognise that these options may not sufficiently address the community need for certainty and wellbeing. 

6.51    Council staff acknowledge that an integrated flooding and erosion option is optimal, however until the proposed erosion investigation has occurred, it was prudent to propose either a set-back bund or improvement of the existing bund as the location of these options would not preclude any possible erosion options.  For these same reasons it was not considered prudent to propose an engineered bund in the LINZ bund location in advance of the proposed investigation work.

6.52    It is important to note that some Southshore residents are seeking a longer-term solution to flooding and erosion for the area.  This would be more effectively delivered through adaptation planning, where Council and community will develop options for how the area will adapt to climate change in the short, medium and long-term.  Adaptation planning is outside the scope of this project.

Recommended option for Southshore: Phase one: Investigate immediate and longer term erosion options (including options for the edge structures) and advise on the position of the bund.

Technical approach to managing erosion and flood risk in this area.

6.53    Erosion to the estuary edge can be managed using a range of methods.  However, further investigations are required because existing erosion protection is provided by a range of different structures built by previous landowners using varying materials and to unknown standards on varying ground conditions.  There is not a known single, or simple solution at this point.

6.54    There are also potentially significant complexities regarding the remaining privately built structures along Southshore, including lack of clarity about ownership, responsibilities and whether these would need to be retrospectively consented prior to any works being undertaken on them.  These issues are being investigated further.

6.55    Flood risk is managed through a range of methods, and in this area bunds are optimal as they can be setback to allow room for a range of erosion methods. 

Option description:

6.56    In response to community feedback, Council staff recommend setting aside any decision on the proposed bund options until the proposed erosion management investigations have occurred.  Once these investigations are completed and options to manage earthquake legacy-related erosion issues are identified, the location of the bund can be revisited.  Note that no changes to current stabilisation of emergency works underway in Southshore are proposed.

6.57    It is proposed that the erosion investigations address:

·    Immediate responses to increased erosion risk related to earthquake legacy issues;

·    Management of the edge structures, including the ability to clear any unsafe materials; and

·    Solutions that can be considered as part of upcoming adaptation planning.

6.58    As there is no clear preference from the Community Assessment for either proposed bund option, it is recommended that this investigation also provide advice on possible bund alignment, including for an engineered bund to a height if RL 11.4m in a similar location to the current LINZ bund.

6.59    The first part of this investigation has been completed through Jacobs Ltd’s assessment of the condition and effectiveness of the current structures, and the condition of the edge where erosion is occurring.

6.60    Further investigation will include:

·    Understanding the ground conditions and any potential land contamination;

·    An assessment of the level of risk to people, property and infrastructure in relation to earthquake legacy issues;

·    Identifying and describing the methods available to manage erosion issues along parts of the Southshore estuary edge;

·    Determining the status of the edge structures and who has responsibility for them;

·    Preparing concept designs for any possible options to address earthquake legacy issues with estimated capital and maintenance costs (noting that any options that go further than addressing earthquake legacy issues will need to be considered as part of the separate adaptation-planning project).

6.61    It is proposed that a Community Advisory Group is established to ensure local knowledge informs the investigation activity and the community has clarity on the scope of work that responds to earthquake legacy issues and what is planned in the upcoming adaptation project.  Council staff are considering how to include representation from across Christchurch to ensure that decisions related to the Ihutai/Estuary are cognisant of the importance of this asset to the city.

Cost, funding and implementation

6.62    The estimated cost of this option is $300,000 for the investigations, not including any subsequent works.  The investigations can be funded through the regeneration initiatives allocation of $1.3million operational funds for planning work.

Consenting and policy direction

6.63    No resource consent is required for the investigations.  Any outcomes from the investigation are likely to require non-complying consents due to the location of works in the Coastal Marine Area and the unconsented status of existing structures which would add complexity, uncertainty and time to the project.


 

Do anyway options

6.64    Several other actions are underway in response to the following community needs.  No decisions are required in relation to this work.

6.65    In response to the need for the “Provision of clear, transparent, timely and easily accessible information about all Council technical reports and decision-making related to current and future hazards”, Council staff have produced eight South New Brighton and Southshore focused Fact Sheets covering topics including ‘Life Safety Risk from Stopbanks and Flooding’, ‘Planning and Approvals’, ‘Groundwater Issues’, ‘Flooding’, and ‘Stormwater’.  Maps of works undertaken to date by Council have also been produced.  This information is available online (www.coastalfutures.co.nz) and was available in hard copy at the Community Assessment drop-in.  Council staff will continue to find ways to disseminate the information to residents.

6.66    In response to the need for “Well-maintained and cared for parks and public spaces that demonstrate a commitment to the community, and allow for safe enjoyment of the area.” Council staff will publish the annual maintenance schedule and the updates that are regularly provided to the Community Board.

6.67    In response to the need for “A well-constructed, monitored and maintained stormwater system that functions in the coastal environment, and provides adequate drainage.” Council is currently able to deploy temporary pumps to manage stormwater during designated wet weather events where these coincide with king tides.

7.   Financial impacts

7.1       The financial impacts are set out in the following table.

Item

Cost estimates

Source of funds/FY

Budget holder

These figures are high level estimates only with detailed scoping, design and costings yet to be completed.

Area wide - Continuous walkway/cycleway.

$150,000 CAPEX for improvements.

 

 

$450,000 new bund track in Southshore (deferred)

FY19/20

$150,000 regeneration initiatives funding (CAPEX).

 

F20/21

If the Southshore track is progressed it would require $450,000 new funding from the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Parks

 

 

 

LDRP

North of Bridge Street –Stopbank Investigation/updated life safety.

$100,000 OPEX

FY19/20

$1.3M regeneration initiatives funding (OPEX)

 

Nil in outyears unless investigation requires significant remedial actions.  Any such actions would need to will be funded from new funding from the 2021-31 LTP

 

Strategy and Transformation


 

South of Bridge Street - New setback bunds with erosion management

$1-1.5M for the bund

$1.6M for erosion

 

Total $2.6M - $3.1M

CAPEX

FY19/20

$750,000 regeneration initiatives funding (CAPEX).

 

F20/21 – 21/22

Remaining $1.85 - $2.35 million new funding to be sought for outyears from 2020/21 Annual Plan and 2021-31 LTP.

LDRP

Southshore – erosion Investigation

$300,000 OPEX

F19/20

$1.3 million regeneration initiatives funding (OPEX).  Any outcome of this work would also require new funding to be sought from the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Strategy and Transformation

7.2       The additional funds sought at this point equate to a 0.03 percent rates increase over two years for a $2.5million funding increase.  Further possible work noted above would impact further on rates.

8.   Previous decisions

8.1       To support the resolution on 9 May 2019 cited earlier in this paper, on 25 June 2019 the Council resolved [CAPL/2019/00057 and CAPL/2019/00048] to reallocate funding it had budgeted for Regenerate Christchurch over 2019/20 and 2020/21 to the following regeneration initiatives:

·    $1.3million in each year for Southshore and South New Brighton Regeneration funding, including planning work (for earthquake legacy issues and long term adaptation work) and the operating component (non-capitalisable) for any physical works.

·    Approve $900,000 capital in 2019/20 to enable any early capital works that may be required following the report back to Council on Southshore and South New Brighton earthquake legacy issues in August 2019.  Further capital may be required in future years.  Note: This does not change the Annual Plan starting rating of 4.79 percent.

9.   Strategic alignment

9.1       Addressing the earthquake legacy issues faced by the Southshore and South New Brighton communities is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Framework, specifically the Community Outcome of Strong Communities and Strategic Priorities to enable connected communities who are happier, healthier, more productive and more resilient; and taking an informed and proactive approach to natural hazard risks in advance of the future adaptation planning.  The proposed options support these priorities by meeting community needs and addressing current risks, thereby rebuilding trust between Council and these communities.

9.2       Alongside these considerations is the Strategic Priority of climate change leadership.  This includes recognition of the climate emergency declared by Council in May 2019, and embedding climate change considerations in Council decision making.  The proposed options have been assessed to ensure they address immediate earthquake legacy issues but where possible do not predetermine longer-term adaptation options.

9.3       Statutory direction in the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010, regional and district plans, and South Brighton Reserves Management Plan 2014, and levels of service in the Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan were also considered in identifying and evaluating options.

10. Assessment of significance and engagement

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

10.2    The level of significance was determined to be medium-high primarily due to the high levels of community interest and new funds required and the commensurate impact on rates.  There are also potential environmental impacts.

10.3    The Ihutai/Estuary is a Statutory Acknowledgement Area, which means it is of particular cultural, spiritual, historic and traditional association to Ngāi Tahu.  The extent of any impact on cultural values will depend on the extent, nature and location of works, with more naturally derived methods having lower impact than hard engineering solutions. Archaeological authority may also be required in some areas where there are known archaeological sites of Māori origin.  During the consenting process for any agreed options engagement would be required with mana whenua and the Te Ihutai Ahu Whenua Trust.

10.4    Engagement with the Southshore and South New Brighton communities has been central to this project.  Due to the short project timeline, early warning of engagement opportunities was vital, with four hard copy Coastal Futures newsletters delivered to every house in the area over the 12 weeks that the project has run.  Despite the limited timeline, 29 of the 66 long listed options were generated by the community, 50 community members attended the workshops to identify community needs, and 70 community members attended the Community Assessment.  Responses to the Community Assessment surveys totalled 141 from Southshore, 110 from South New Brighton – south of Bridge Street, 45 from South New Brighton – north of Bridge Street, and 77 from across the area which is comparable to other engagements Council holds.

10.5    The Community Board were briefed on five occasions and the How Team (and sub-groups) met multiple times to provide engagement advice to the Project Team.  These experiences and opportunities were critical to the project, and while there is not universal agreement on all options, staff have always attempted to ensure that all views are heard, and robust and detailed information is now presented to the Council to assist in its decision making.   

11. Legal implications

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

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

11.3    The report has addressed the consideration of options for the Council’s decision making.

11.4    Resource consent is required for some of the actions recommended in this report. That will be a separate decision making process for the consent authority under the RMA.

12. Risks

12.1    The decision to separate earthquake legacy issues from adaptation planning has created challenges in managing expectations around the scope of this project.  Some in the community may consider the options proposed in this paper to address earthquake legacy issues are insufficient to meet their need for confidence and certainty about the longer-term future. 

12.2    Staff have sought to manage these expectations through regular communications to define the difference between the earthquake legacy and adaptation projects.  The resolution of earthquake legacy issues should also enable more future focused discussions relating to adaptation planning to occur.

12.3    Implementation of these proposed options may appear slow, given the consenting barriers and other issues of feasibility and practicality.  These constraints were clearly signalled during the Community Assessment including through a Fact Sheet on planning and approvals.

13. Next steps

13.1    Following Council decisions, any agreed options will be progressed through the appropriate work programmes.  If the option to undertake investigations in Southshore is supported, a report back to Council in early 2020 will recommend options to address erosion and flood risk related to earthquake legacy issues.  Erosion options that provide for longer-term protection will be carried forward to the adaptation planning project.

14. Adaptation planning and coastal hazards plan change.

14.1    The 9 May 2019 Council resolution anticipated that adaptation planning in Southshore and South New Brighton would inform an area-specific coastal hazards plan change to the Christchurch District Plan. 

14.2    Staff have been reviewing the existing approach and considering alternatives, including adaptation planning for the whole district followed by a district-wide plan change; or an interim district-wide plan change in parallel with adaptation planning, followed by a more comprehensive plan change.

14.3    Discussions are being held with staff from Waimakariri and Selwyn District Councils and Environment Canterbury.  Council will be updated on progress on the options, with decisions sought on the recommended direction in early 2020.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Council works completed post-earthquake in Southshore and South New Brighton

208

b

SSSNB Assessment Report

209

c

Jacobs Ltd Report - Avon-Heathcote Ihutai Estuary Edge Condition Inventory (July 2019)

235

d

Appendix to Jacobs Ltd Report - Avon-Heathcote Ihutai Estuary Edge Condition Inventory (July 2019) (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

South New Brighton Park Erosion report (May 2019)

320

f

Indicative map locations for the recommended options

365

 

 

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

Jane Morgan - Principal Programme Advisor

Approved By

David Griffiths - Head of Planning & Strategic Transport

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 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


Council

29 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


Council

29 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


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

7.     Capital Endowment Fund Applications: 2019/20 Round 1

Reference:

19/967951

Presenter(s):

John Filsell- Head of Community Support, Governance & Partnerships
Sam Callander - Community Funding Team Leader

 

 

Secretarial Note: This item was referred to this meeting from 22 August 2019 meeting.  

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Council to consider applications for funding from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund Round 1 from the organisations listed below.

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

Eastern Community Sport and Recreation

Rawhiti Domain Canopy

$300,000

$172,075

Huntsbury Community Centre

Earthquake Strengthening of Huntsbury Community Centre

$50,000

$50,000

South Brighton Surf Life Saving Club

Clubrooms

$250,000

$250,000

The Art & Industry Biennial Trust (trading as SCAPE Public Art)

Gateway Public Artwork: Totara Highway/Cranford Street

$100,000

$100,000

Total 2019/20

$700,000

$572,075

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Makes a grant of $172,075 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund Round 1 to be released as one instalment to Eastern Community Sport and Recreation for the Rawhiti Domain Canopy Project towards professional fees and construction fees.

a.         Final reporting is to be submitted 12 months following payment or completion of the Rawhiti Domain Canopy project, whichever comes first.

2.         Makes a grant of $50,000 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund Round 1 to be released as one instalment to Huntsbury Community Centre Inc for the Earthquake Strengthening of Huntsbury Community Centre.

a.         Final reporting is to be submitted 12 months following payment or completion of the Earthquake Strengthening of Huntsbury Community Centre, whichever comes first.

3.         Makes a grant of $250,000 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund Round 1 to be released as one instalment to South Brighton Surf Life Saving Club for the Clubrooms towards construction costs.

a.         Final reporting is to be submitted 12 months following payment or completion of the Clubrooms project, whichever comes first.

4.         Makes a grant of $100,000 from the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund Round 1 to The Art & Industry Biennial Trust (trading as SCAPE Public Art) for the Gateway Public Artwork: Totara Highway/Cranford Street.

a.         Payment will be released in one instalment to The Art & Industry Biennial Trust (trading as SCAPE Public Art) subject to:

i.          Evidence of the project being fully funded is provided to the Community Funding Team Leader. If funding requirements are not met by 30 June 2021 the approved amount will be rescinded and returned to the Capital Endowment Fund.

ii.         A satisfactory 10 year maintenance plan is provided to the Parks Asset Planning and Management Team Leader that will ensure Tōtara will not result in unbudgeted operational or capital expenditure for Council.

b.         Final reporting is to be submitted 12 months following payment or completion of the Gateway Public Artwork: Totara Highway/Cranford Street project, whichever comes first.

3.   Key Points

Issue or Opportunity

3.1       On 12 April 2018 the Council resolved to establish criteria for distributing the proceeds of the Capital Endowment Fund (CEF) (CNCL/2018/00057).  On 10 May 2018 Council resolved to utilise all income from the CEF for three years, 2018/19 to 2020/21 (i.e. not use part of the income to inflation-protect the fund). 

3.2       On 13 December 2018 Council established eligibility and assessment criteria for the CEF and an application process.  Assessment criteria are as follows:

3.2.1   Evidence that the proposal is for a specific project or activity projects.  Or evidence of economic or environmental benefits.

3.2.2   Evidence that the project demonstrates a benefit for the City of Christchurch, or its citizens, or for a community of people living in Christchurch.

3.2.3   Evidence that the benefits will be experienced now and in the future.

Strategic Alignment

3.3       The recommendations align to Council’s Strategic Framework; each application’s alignment is detailed in the respective decision matrix attached.

3.4       Decision Making Authority

3.4.1   Authority for making grant decisions for the Capital Endowment Fund sits with the Council.

3.4.2   Allocations must be consistent with any policies, standards or criteria adopted by the Council.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

3.6       The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

Balance of the Capital Endowment Fund Available for Allocation

3.8       On 10 May 2018 Council resolved to utilise all income from the CEF for three years, 2018/19 to 2020/21 (i.e. not use part of the income to inflation-protect the fund). 

3.9       At the time of writing, the balance of the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund is as below, with further detail in Capital Endowment Fund Income and Allocations 2019/20 to 2022/23 attached.

CEF Year

Expected Interest Earnings

(Figures in $000s)

Allocated

Available for allocation

Total of staff recommendations 

Available if staff recommendation adopted 

2019/20

$3,757

$2,744

$983

$572

$411

2020/21

$3,523

$2,574

$949

-

$949

2021/22

$1,902*

$1,764

$138

-

$138

2022/23

$1,827*

$1,639

$188

-

$188

*The 2021/22 & 2022/23 years include a reduction for inflation protection due to the decision outlined in 3.8

 

3.10    Based on the current Council approved Capital Endowment Fund criteria, the applications listed above are eligible for funding.  The attached decision matrices provide detailed information for the applications.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

3.11    The remaining balance of the 2019/20 Capital Endowment Fund following approvals by the Council will be carried forward to Round Two of the 2019/20 financial year for decision in February 2020.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Capital Endowment Fund Income and Allocations 2019/20 to 2022/23

371

b

2019-20 CEF Round 1 - Eastern Community Sport & Recreation Inc Decision Matrix

372

c

2019-20 CEF Round 1 - Huntsbury Community Centre Decision Matrix

374

d

2019-20 CEF Round 1 - South Brighton Surf Life Saving Club Inc Decision Matrix

375

e

2019-20 CEF Round 1 - SCAPE Decision Matrix

376

 

 

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

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Ruby Sione - Community Funding Advisor

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

8.     Community Resilience Partnership Fund

Reference:

19/967963

Presenter(s):

Sam Callander - Funding Team Leader
Josh Wharton – Community, Partnerships & Planning Advisor
Sarah Amazinnia – Community Arts Advisor

 

 

Secretarial Note: This item was referred to this meeting from 22 August 2019 meeting. 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is to recommend to the Council the allocation of grants from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund. 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.          Makes a grant of $20,000 to Barrier Free New Zealand Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund towards implementation of the Accessibility Charter.

2.         Makes a grant of $27,682 to Exchange Christchurch Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund towards the Six Community Projects initiative.

3.          Makes a grant of $48,880 to Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year One of the Community Activator initiative.

4.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, the Council makes a grant of $48,880 to Mt. Pleasant Memorial Community Centre and Residents Association from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year Two of the Community Activator initiative.

5.          Makes a grant of $7,000 to Papanui Youth Development Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year One of the Disability Project.

6.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, the Council makes a grant of $7,000 to Papanui Youth Development Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year Two of the Disability Project.

7.         Makes a grant of $18,330 to The Parenting Place Charitable Trust from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Building Awesome Whānau Programmes.

8.          Makes a grant of $20,000 to Renew Brighton from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year One of the New Brighton Community Development initiative.

9.         Subject to the return of a satisfactory monitoring report, the Council makes a grant of $20,000 to Renew Brighton from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund for Year Two of the New Brighton Community Development initiative.

 


 

3.   Key Points

Issue or Opportunity

3.1       The contract with the Ministry of Health identified that the Community Resilience Fund will support projects that strengthen communities by increasing community participation, connectedness and resilience.

Strategic Alignment

3.2       The recommendation is aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of enabling active citizenship and connected communities. It will provide a strong sense of community.

Objectives of the Community Resilience Fund

3.3       The objectives of the Fund are to invest in initiatives which contribute to Community Resilience through:

·   Community Connection and Activation

·     Strengthen connections between neighbours, families, whānau and communities of shared interest and identity, as well as geographically.

·     Create and activate places within local communities that increase access to opportunities for physical activity and social connection.

·   Community-led Response

·     Support local community-led initiatives.

·     Recognise and utilise the resources, skills, knowledge and infrastructure of local communities.

·     Build on existing community strengths and reflect the local context.

·   Capacity Building

·     Strengthen the capacity and capability of communities to identify and deliver effective services and activities that will increase community resilience and wellbeing.

·     Identify and cultivate local leadership.

·   Collaboration

·     Create collaborative ways of working that will endure beyond the completion of a specific project.

·     Engage a broad range of stakeholders to identify common interests and benefits that might be achieved by working together and engender long-term commitment to being part of the solution.

·   Innovation and Enterprise

·     Encourage innovation and creativity.

·     Encourage and enable social enterprise.

·   Removing Barriers to Participation and Resilience

·     Remove earthquake related barriers to participation and resilience.

·     Support initiatives that enhance peoples’ ability to access to appropriate services. 

·     Increase participation in, and awareness of, community, recreation, sports, arts, heritage and environment groups, programmes and local events.

3.4       The Council formally adopted the Objectives as the funding Criteria in October 2017.

Funding Process

3.5       The contract identified that the fund will primarily use a direct selection approach. This method was selected because:

·   This approach minimises the transaction and compliance costs for groups and Council.

·   Funding can be targeted based on the objectives of the fund.

·   Funding arrangements can be flexible and innovative activities developed as funding is not restricted by an application or contract.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

3.7       The level of significance was determined by the number of people affected and/or with an interest.

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

Discussion

3.9       There are six (6) initiatives recommended for consideration from the Community Resilience Partnership Fund.

3.10    The applications have been reviewed and approved by the Psychosocial Governance Group.

3.11    The Council has allocated funding to 44 initiatives since October 2017.  The total allocation to date is $2,842,700 Year 1 and $2,195,520 Year 2.

3.12    At the time of writing, the balance of the Community Resilience Partnership Fund is $961,780.

3.13    Recommendations for the Community Resilience Partnership Fund are outlined in Attachment A. A summary matrix is detailed in Attachment B. The Community Resilience Partnership Fund funding history is listed in Attachment C.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - CRPF Funding Proposals August 2019

381

b

Attachment B - CRPF Summary Matrix August 2019

398

c

Attachment C - Community Resilience Partnership Fund Financial Tracking August 2019

401

 

 

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

Nicola Thompson - Community Funding Advisor

Sam Callander - Team Leader Community Funding

Approved By

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Council

29 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


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 


Council

29 August 2019

 

Report from Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee  – 7 August 2019

 

9.     Victoria Street - Revitalisation

Reference:

19/967946

Presenter(s):

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

 

 

Secretarial Note: This item was referred to this meeting from 22 August 2019 meeting. 

 

1. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Consideration

 

The Committee heard deputations on this item from:

·    George Forbes

·    Dirk De Lu on behalf of Spokes Canterbury

·    Margo Perpick from Apollo Power Yoga

 

The Committee raised concerns about the sharrow lane at the intersection of Victoria, Durham and Kilmore Streets and asked staff to improve the options for cyclists at this intersection.

The Committee recognised that parking is a matter of concern for local businesses and asked staff to work on a parking guide for businesses in the area.

The Committee further recognised that some submitters indicated their concerns would be partially addressed by converting Salisbury Street to time-restricted parking to increase turnover. Staff advised that there is a plan to address time-restricted parking on Salisbury Street before the Victoria Street project is delivered.  Submitters also requested more cycle parking on Victoria Street and the Committee requested staff to investigate this. 

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the revised scheme design including all layout changes as detailed in option 1 of this report (Victoria Street Revitalisation) as per Attachment A.

2.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee authority to make final decisions on all detailed traffic resolutions at the completion of the detailed design phase for this project and prior to the beginning of construction.

 

3. Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee Recommendation to Council

 

Part A

That the Council:

1.         Approves the revised scheme design including all layout changes as detailed in option 1 of this report (Victoria Street Revitalisation) as per Attachment A.

2.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee authority to make final decisions on all detailed traffic resolutions at the completion of the detailed design phase for this project and prior to the beginning of construction.

3.         Requests staff to improve options for cyclists at the intersection of Victoria, Durham and Kilmore Streets and advise the Committee of the outcome.

4.         Requests staff to investigate more cycle parking options.

5.         Requests staff to work on a parking guide for businesses.

6.         Requests staff to increase green planting where possible.

7.         Notes that there is a plan to address time-restricted parking on Salisbury Street prior to delivery of this project.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Report Title

Page

1  

Victoria Street - Revitalisation

405

 

No.

Title

Page

a

Victoria Street - Preferred Option

420

b

Victoria Street Approved Plan - September 2016

422

c

Victoria Street Re-Engagement Report

430

d

Victoria Street Re-Engagement Submissions

440

 

 


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 August 2019

 

 

Victoria Street - Revitalisation

Reference:

19/692652

Presenter(s):

Stefan Jermy

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee to review and consider the recommendations for traffic management and streetscape improvements to Victoria Street and the intersection of Bealey Avenue and Papanui Road.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       The Victoria Street transport project was originally approved in September 2016. However, since early 2017 it has been subject to delays and formally placed on hold by elected members as part of the annual plan process that year. In February 2018, the Council passed a resolution requesting staff carry out further engagement on Victoria Street, with a separate report on this to be presented to the Infrastructure Transport and Environment Committee.

2.2       Victoria Street is prioritised for walking, cycling and public transport, and it’s also a local distributor street which caters for vehicle traffic. The street is a mixed-use area which includes hospitality, accommodation, professional services and retail, and it also supports residential streets. With such a wide range of businesses and modal priorities, finding the right balance with the street design to support everyone’s needs is challenging.

2.3       The current condition of the street is poor with the asset well past its renewal date.  This combined with earthquake damage to the street will be addressed if the proposed scheme design is approved as it undertakes the renewal of all infrastructure including stormwater, lighting, road surfacing, kerbs and footpaths.

2.4       Recent engagement has found the majority of Victoria Street stakeholders recognise Victoria Street is in poor condition, and something needs to be done to improve it.

2.5       Key issues raised includes the timing and impact that any construction activities may have on Victoria Street businesses. This report recommends minor improvements to the September 2016 approved plan. Staff believe this is an appropriate response considering the stakeholder feedback, the range of adjacent land uses, the objectives of the Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the future of Victoria Street.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee recommends that the Council:

1.         Approves the revised scheme design including all layout changes as detailed in option 1 of this report (Victoria Street Revitalisation) as per Attachment A.

2.         Delegates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee authority to make final decisions on all detailed traffic resolutions at the completion of the detailed design phase for this project and prior to the beginning of construction.

 

 

4.   Context/Background

Context

4.1       In October 2013 the Transport Chapter was adopted into the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. The Transport Chapter responds to earlier feedback from the community about future transport arrangements in the central city, received through the 2011 Council-led ‘Share An Idea’ community consultation and also later reflected in elements of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan blueprint of land-use development (adopted in 2012). The Recovery Plan is built upon a principle of achieving a compact, people-friendly core. This will create an attractive environment for people to live, work, visit and spend time in the central city.

4.2       Victoria Street is situated in a densely populated area of the central city which has a wide range of mixed-use businesses. Post-earthquake, the Recovery Plan proposed a road renewal project for this area. 

Background

4.3       The Victoria Street upgrade project has been subject to delays since it was initially approved on 22 September 2016. Concerns were raised by stakeholders about the removal of on-street parking, and the necessity and timing of the works. The project was formally placed on hold by elected members as part of the 2017 Annual Plan and a report was requested on options for central city roading projects. This report was presented to the Council in February 2018 resulting in the continuation of Central City Transport Projects and the resolution that Victoria Street needed further engagement and a subsequent report back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

Issues

4.4       Victoria Street sustained damage in the Canterbury earthquake sequence and has sustained continued wear and tear since.  The purpose of this project is to complete a street upgrade project, which will result in improved amenity for the businesses in the area, safety improvements at intersections and crossing points, improved asset function and some improvements for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. 

4.5       Balancing the varied needs of Victoria Street businesses such as retail, hospitality, hotel accommodation and professional services – which require access and parking – as well as the needs of public transport, cycling and walking, is challenging.

4.6       Significant changes to the function of the intersections at Victoria/Montreal/Salisbury and Victoria/Durham will not be undertaken as part of this project. These will be completed as part of the Salisbury and Kilmore streets two-way conversion project currently scheduled in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan for FY2024-FY2026.

4.7       There are currently 100 on-street car parks on Victoria Street and this will be reduced to 68, with a net loss of 32, if the scheme is approved. The rationale for parking losses is to provide for intersection safety improvements at Dorset Street, Bealey Avenue, Peterborough Street and Durham Street. Additional space is also required for improved driveway setbacks, improving sight lines, installation of loading zones, modifications to bus stops and tree planting.

Opportunity

4.8       The proposed scheme design recommended by staff is viewed as the most practical and achievable balance between transport objectives and stakeholder needs for an upgrade of Victoria Street at this point in the post-earthquake recovery environment.

4.9       The recommended scheme design will address Bealey Avenue and Papanui Road intersection safety issues. The Council’s intersection safety project CPMS ID 17117 Bealey/ Papanui/ Victoria is ranked 14 out of all Christchurch High Risk intersections. The scheme design will address the road safety issues by;

4.9.1   Improving the left turn slip lane from Bealey Avenue to Papanui Road by slowing traffic with a raised platform and improved surfacing for pedestrians.

4.9.2   Installing a staggered pedestrian crossing on Bealey Avenue to improve pedestrian safety.

4.9.3   Protecting pedestrian crossings at Papanui Road and Victoria Street by providing a protected pedestrian phase.

4.10    A Road Safety Audit has been carried out for the recommended scheme design. The audit was carried out by independent road safety engineers. The outcomes of the updated scheme stage road safety audit found no major issues.

4.11    The auditor’s comments are predominantly focused on line markings, road surface colour treatments for cycle lanes and coloured surface treatments at crossing points. The auditor discussed concerns about possible traffic build up – as a result of removing the slip lane on the Northwest corner of the intersection of Bealey Avenue and Papanui Road – with the project team. The scheme proposed will retain the slip lane and improve surface treatments and also provide a raised platform in the slip lane to slow traffic making the left turn movement.

Current Situation

4.12    Council staff have completed a second round of engagement fulfilling resolution CNCL/2018/00024 requesting staff to carry out further engagement.

4.13    During re-engagement, Council staff heard from stakeholders that there are still high levels of concern about the project. However, it’s noted that a very high percentage of stakeholders recognise that something needs to be done to Victoria Street as the current condition of the street is poor. The asset is 13 years past its planned renewal date. Section six of this report summarises the process and outcomes of the re-engagement.

4.14    The proposed project fully renews the civil infrastructure asset. This includes upgrading the stormwater system, road surfacing, footpaths, pedestrian areas, kerb and channel and lighting. 

4.15    Once the asset is renewed, it does not limit the Council’s ability to change surface elements of the street that may affect traffic flows, public transport, cycling and walking.

Strategic Alignment

4.16    This project is identified in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018-2028). Victoria Street breaks the CBD road grid diagonally and is a gateway to the city from the north.  For a variety of reasons, the recovery of Victoria Street is well advanced compared to other areas of the CBD.  The street is a hub of hospitality and commercial activity.

4.17    Under the Central City Road Use Hierarchy of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, Victoria Street is prioritised for public transport, walking and cycling. Victoria Street is classified as a Local Distributor Street and needs to cater for vehicle traffic as well as public transport, walking and cycling.

4.18    It is noted that the street is not prioritised for car travel, with the traffic through routes within the vicinity being the Durham/Montreal one-way pair for north/south travel and Bealey Avenue providing the key east/west link.

4.19    The width of Victoria Street from kerb to kerb is 13.9 meters. This provides a challenge for the scheme design’s ability to provide for the levels of service for buses, cyclists and other vehicles requested during the re-engagement process, whilst also finding alignment with the Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

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

4.20.1 Activity: Roads & Footpaths

·     Level of Service: 16.0.2.0 Maintain roadway condition, to an appropriate national standard - =69%

Decision Making Authority

4.21    The Victoria Street works were identified as a Metropolitan Project in the September 2016 report to the Council. Under the Delegations Register it is the responsibility of the Council to make the relevant decisions for a Metropolitan project.

Previous Decisions

4.22    On 16 September 2016, the Council resolved to approve the Victoria Street project, reference CNCL/2016/00426.

4.23    As part of the 2017 Annual Plan process, on 20 June 2017, the Council requested staff report back, on options for work on the Accessible City street projects, reference CAPL/2017/00022.

4.24    Council resolved on 22 February 2018 to approve the continuation of the Accessible City programme of work noting that the delivery of Victoria Street is on hold, subject to further engagement and a report back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee, reference CNCL/2018/00024.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

4.26    The level of significance was determined by the Christchurch City Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and reflects the:

·    Small project area in relation to the Christchurch District,

·    Level of community interest already shown in this issue,

·    High level of development and redevelopment along the street.

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

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

·   Option 1 – Victoria Street Revitalisation

·   Option 2 –Victoria Street Upgrade: September 2016 Approved Plan

·   Option 3 – Maintain Existing Street.

Options Descriptions

5.2       Preferred Option: Option 1 - Victoria Street Revitalisation

5.2.1   Option Description: The preferred option is to implement the package of traffic management changes and streetscape enhancements as indicated on the scheme plan provided as Attachment A.

5.2.2   Option Advantages

·     Is consistent with the Transport Chapter’s vision for the central city.

·     Addresses dilapidated infrastructure assets of stormwater, road surfaces, kerb and channel, street lighting, road surfacing and footpaths.

·     Upgrades the urban environment with improved landscaping and public spaces including 37 new street trees.

·     Facilitates an improved connection between Victoria Street, the Christchurch Town Hall, Victoria Square and the central city.

·     Safety improvements to the Bealey Avenue and Papanui Road Intersection.

·     Improved definition for road users with cycle lane markings, coloured surfacing, widened footpaths, raised platforms and traffic calming measures provided by widened footpaths and the installation of street trees.

5.2.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Reduction in car parking (reduction of 32 spaces).

·     Does not provide significant improvements to public transport journey time reliability (to be addressed under the Salisbury and Kilmore Streets two way conversion projects).

5.3       Option 2 – Victoria Street Upgrade: September 2016 Approved Plan

5.3.1   Option Description: This option maintains the plan that was approved by Council in September 2016. Attachment B.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Is consistent with the Transport Chapter’s vision for the central city.

·     Addresses dilapidated infrastructure assets of stormwater, road surfaces, kerb and channel, street lighting, road surfacing and footpaths.

·     Upgrades the urban environment with improved landscaping and public spaces including 60 new street trees.

·     Facilitates an improved connection between Victoria Street, the Christchurch Town Hall, Victoria Square and the central city.

·     Safety improvements to the Bealey Avenue and Papanui Road Intersection.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Reduction in car parking (reduction of 39 spaces).

·     Sharp radii on kerb build-outs/parking bays.

·     Does not provide significant improvements to public transport journey time reliability (to be addressed under the Salisbury and Kilmore streets two-way conversion projects).

·     Two less mobility car parks – these are on Dorset Street which were not identified under the 2016 approved plan.

5.4       Option 3Maintain Existing Street

5.4.1   Option Description: Retain Victoria Street in its current form and maintain.

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     No capital costs expended.

·     Retains current parking levels.

·     No disturbance to adjacent businesses from construction activity. 

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     High level of ongoing maintenance required, given the current condition of the street.

·     Does not provide any improvements to public transport journey time reliability (to be addressed under the Salisbury and Kilmore streets two-way conversion projects).

·     Undermines the credibility of the 30km/h speed limit for the street.

·     Retains difficulties for pedestrians crossing the street.

 

6.   Community Views and Preferences

Background

6.1       The Council, which approved plans for the Victoria Street upgrade in September 2016, placed the project on hold, along with the rest of its central city transport programme, in 2017.

6.2       In February 2018, the Council decided that the delivery of the Victoria Street project would remain on hold, pending further re-engagement and a report back to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

6.3       Before re-engaging with stakeholders, staff undertook minor improvements to the 2016 approved plan for the street based on lessons learned. These improvements included amending kerb lines to remove sharp angles on parking bays, and trees on kerb build-outs to make it easier to access street parking and driveways.

6.4       The project team continued talking with local businesses and property owners, and had further discussions with emergency services and Environment Canterbury.

6.5       Staff have provided updates to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee in April and June 2019.

6.6       Staff also updated the Linwood, Central, and Heathcote Community Board in August 2018, and April and July 2019.

6.7       The proposed scheme design went out for public feedback from 18 April to 27 May 2019. Letters were posted to 137 stakeholders and information emailed to 363 people and organisations inviting feedback. Stakeholders included those who had previously submitted on the approved plan.

6.8       Two public drop-in sessions were organised for members of the public who wanted to discuss the re-engagement plan with project team members.

6.9       Of the 78 submitters:

·        13 (17 per cent) supported the upgrade of Victoria Street

·        39 (50 per cent) generally supported the upgrade, but had some feedback

·        25 (32 per cent) did not support the upgrade

·        One submitter did not indicate a view

6.10    The re-engagement report is Attachment C, and a copy of all submissions in Attachment D.


 

Feedback on the re-engagement plan

6.11    Aspects of the proposed scheme designs that appealed to submitters included:

6.11.1 The proposed trees and landscaping

6.11.2 Pedestrian build-outs to help people cross the road

6.11.3 Wider and tidier footpaths

6.11.4 Better kerb design

6.11.5 Upgrading of the carriageway, which is in a very poor condition

6.12    Key issues raised by those who provided feedback or did not support the upgrade of Victoria Street were:

6.12.1 More provision required for cyclists

6.12.2 Not enough priority for buses

6.12.3 Need for safer crossing facilities for pedestrians

6.12.4 Too much emphasis on cars and on-street parking

6.12.5 Not enough parking for businesses

Feedback on proposed construction works for the re-engagement plan

6.13    Businesses who responded to questions relating to the timing and sequencing of works in the recent re-engagement, supported the following approaches:

6.13.1 Construction starting as soon as possible i.e. winter, or in January

6.13.2 Work scheduled for one part of the street at a time

6.13.3 Night-time work (6 responses)

6.13.4 At least one-lane vehicle access maintained during the day

Changes to the re-engagement plan as a result of community feedback and design review

6.14    Changes proposed to the Victoria Street and Dorset Street intersections are as follows:

6.14.1 Location of the pedestrian crossing has been adjusted to fit longer entry taper for the bus stop outside #157.

6.14.2 Driveway at #155 is removed as access from Victoria Street is no longer required. An additional car park has been provided.

6.14.3 Car parks outside #126 has been removed with kerb build-out. Additional cycle parking, seats and trees are provided at this point.

6.15    Changes to Victoria Street North are as follows:

6.15.1 Kerb build-outs at #169 and #171 have been extended with an additional tree. Car park outside #169 is removed. Kerb build out and tree outside #167 are removed with retention of a car park.

6.15.2 Relocation of the loading zone and bus stop, outside #138 to #148. Relocation of the tree outside #148 further north.

6.15.3 Two P10 parking spaces outside #149 are changed to P$60.

6.15.4 Raised platform outside #123 has been reduced to 6 m wide, with the addition of two parking spaces.

6.15.5 Additional night time taxi stands on the west side outside #131 are proposed.

6.15.6 30 km/h road marking with red surfacing added at #171 and #101. The 30 km/h signs have been moved closer to Salisbury/Montreal/Victoria intersection.

6.15.7 Additional seats and cycle parking have been provided where possible along this section of the street.

6.15.8 Additional green surfacing is proposed on cycle lanes around parking and bus stops.

6.16    Changes to Victoria Street South are as follows:

6.16.1 One P10 parking space outside #60 is changed to P$60. One P$60 parking space outside #87 is changed to P10.

6.16.2 Night time taxi stands north of Peterborough Street have been changed to three on each side of the road.

6.16.3 30 km/h road marking with red surfacing added on Victoria Street, south of Salisbury/Montreal/Victoria streets intersection and north of Kilmore/Durham Street North/Victoria streets intersection.

6.16.4 Additional seats and cycle parking have been provided where possible along this section of the street.

6.16.5 Kerb build out and tree outside #72 are removed.

6.16.6 Relocation of bus stop from #91 to #81.

6.16.7 Additional green surfacing is proposed on cycle lanes around parking and bus stops.

6.16.8 Buffer between cycle lane and traffic lane outside Casino has been shifted to parking side.

6.17    Changes to Montreal Street are as follows:

6.17.1 Diagonal shoulder markings have been added along the parking spaces on the east side of the road.

6.17.2 Additional two trees.

6.18    Changes are proposed to the Bealey Avenue/Victoria Street/Papanui Road intersection. These changes are the result of updated traffic modelling that was undertaken. They are: 

6.18.1 Removal of cycle advanced stop box in front of the right turn lane of Victoria Street. Right turn cyclists will be encouraged to use hook turn box.

6.18.2 Retention of separated through lane and right turn lane on Victoria Street approach, and removal of bus lane to match the lane layout on Papanui Road.

6.18.3 Cycle advanced stop box has been added in front of right turn lane on Papanui Road approach.

6.18.4 Kerb of median Island on Bealey Avenue west will be adjusted to accommodate three departure lanes.

6.18.5 Retention of existing left turn slip lane from Bealey Avenue to Papanui Road. Installation of a raised platform with zebra crossing.

6.18.6 Retention of existing continuity line and hold boxes for right turn vehicles from Papanui Road and Victoria Street.

6.19    The proposed plan will also address the following intersection safety issues:

·     Improving the left turn slip lane from Bealey Avenue to Papanui Road by slowing traffic with a raised platform with zebra crossing and improved surfacing for pedestrians.

·     Installation of staggered pedestrian crossing on Bealey Avenue to improve pedestrian safety.

·     Protection of pedestrian crossings at Papanui Road and Victoria Street by providing protected pedestrian phase.

·     Installation of hook turn boxes and additional green cycle boxes near the median island to improve cyclists crossing.

6.20    Submitters have been advised of these proposed changes in the plan for approval. They have also been informed of details of the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee meeting on 7 August 2019, and how to apply for speaking rights.

7.   Legal Implications

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

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

7.3       The legal considerations concern appropriate compliance with local government decision-making requirements and Council bylaws.

7.4       The Victoria Street project is deemed a Metropolitan Project so it is for Council to make the relevant decisions. The information in this report provides detail on community views and preferences and the requirements for decision-making in the Local Government Act 2002.

7.5       Part 1, Clause 5 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the authority to install parking and other restrictions by resolution. The report proposes that Council delegates the final decision-making relating to the detailed traffic resolutions to the Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee.

7.6       This project forms part of the Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan, which has statutory effect under the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016.  The Council, in undertaking many of its functions, must not act inconsistently with a Recovery Plan.

8.   Risks

8.1       Risks that have occurred, and will continue to hold an element of risk with this project, are as follows:

8.1.1   Loss of on-street parking.

8.1.2   Timing of construction works.

8.1.3   Impacts that construction works will bring to businesses along the street.

8.1.4   Communications and forward planning methods during construction.

8.2       The consequences of these risks occurring have resulted in, and may continue to result in, negative and or adverse public reaction. The project team have been working through these risks internally, and with stakeholders to mitigate the points above by:

8.2.1   Loss of on-street parking – the plan has been adjusted to include more parks where practicable and staff have provided plans explaining the rationale for parking removal, such as bus stop locations, pedestrian enhancements to intersections, urban elements and drive way setbacks. A survey on car parks was undertaken by independent consultants in 2018 to quantify the number of car parks within a 200 metre distance from Victoria Street. This totalled approximately 2500 car parks made up of on-street, off-street, public and private car parking.

8.2.2   Timing of construction works – has been communicated as a staged build process with the intersection of Bealey/Papanui first, followed by the south end from Salisbury Street to Durham Street and finally the northern section from Salisbury Street to Bealey Avenue. Each section will be completed as a standalone portion of work to help minimising disruption.

8.2.3   Possible impacts that construction works will bring to businesses along the street has been communicated as per point 8.2.2 above, with the southern and northern section being completed in smaller sections to mitigate disruption along the full length of Victoria Street. Mitigation measure include not fencing and road coning the full length of Victoria Street, limiting the time works are undertaken in front of business and completing works in smaller sections. These measure have received positive feedback from stakeholders.

8.2.4   Communications and forward planning methods during construction will follow the same process that was established with business owners in 2016. This includes a stakeholder working group where work programs will be communicated two weeks in advance, allowing business to make necessary travel planning, marketing and parking communications to clients ahead of, and during, works in front of their businesses starting.

9.   Next Steps

9.1       If the Council resolves to proceed with this project the next stage will be to carry out detailed design and tendering.

 

 

1.  


Infrastructure, Transport and Environment Committee

07 August 2019

 

10. Options Matrix

Criteria

Option 1 – Victoria Street Revitalisation

Option 2 – September 2016 Plan

Option 3 – Maintain Existing Layout

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

 

$7,500,000

 

$7,500,000

 

Nil

Maintenance/Ongoing

Additional $43,000/year

This will need to be planned in the Transport maintenance budgets as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Additional $49,000/year

This will need to be planned in the Transport maintenance budgets as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

Essential repairs on Victoria Street to a level that can be maintained for a duration of 5 years without further intervention is quantified at more than $700,000.  This will have to be prioritised and programmed within current maintenance budgets.

Funding Source

Capex from 2018 -2028 Long Term Plan project ID 18324 AAC Victoria Street

Opex from road maintenance budgets.

Capex from 2018 - 2028 Long Term Plan project ID 18324 AAC Victoria Street

Opex from road maintenance budgets.

This will have to be prioritised and programmed within current maintenance budgets.

Impact on Rates

Insignificant rates increase from additional maintenance (net of any NZTA subsidy) to be factored into the 2021 - 2031 Long Term Plan

Insignificant rates increase from additional maintenance (net of any NZTA subsidy) to be factored into the 2021 - 2031 Long Term Plan

Nil

(Criteria 1 e.g. Climate Change Impacts)

Does not reduce or limit car or bus travel, therefore there is no reduction of emissions under this scheme.

 

The plan does provide for 36 new trees along the corridor.

 

The plan provides for new LED lighting which reduces power consumption.

Does not reduce or limit car or bus travel, therefore there is no reduction of emissions under this scheme.

 

The plan does provide for 60 new trees along the corridor.

 

The plan provides for new LED lighting which reduces power consumption.

No impact to climate change as the status quo environment is maintained.

(Criteria 2 e.g. Accessibility Impacts)

This option provides for a total of four total mobility parking spaces. Two in the northern section on Dorset Street which are 15m from Victoria Street and two mobility parking spaces in the southern section on Peterborough Street which are 30m from Victoria Street. 

This option provides for a total of two mobility parking spaces. These are two in the southern section on Peterborough Street which are 30m from Victoria Street. 

This option does not improve accessibility beyond the current level of amenity provided.

(Criteria 3  e.g. Health & Safety Impacts)

No health and safety impacts identified.

No health and safety impacts identified.

No health and safety impacts identified.

(Criteria 4 e.g. Future Generation Impacts)

This option is part of a larger plan to enhance and revitalise the central city.  Providing infrastructure for the future generation is supported by this revitalisation.

Dilapidated assets only compound impacts of maintenance and costs.

This plan renews all roading infrastructure such as storm water, road surfacing, kerb and channel, paved areas and lighting. This full asset renewal does not limit Councils ability in the future to modify the asset to provide a higher level of amenity for different mode choices.

This option is part of a larger plan to enhance and revitalise the central city. Providing infrastructure for the future generation is supported by this revitalisation.

Dilapidated assets only compound impacts of maintenance and costs.

This plan renews all roading infrastructure such as storm water, road surfacing, kerb and channel, paved areas and lighting. This full asset renewal does not limit Councils ability in the future to modify the asset to provide a higher level of amenity for different mode choices.

This option would impact the future generation as the asset would not be enhanced to complement other streets in the central city revitalisation.

 

Criteria

Option 1 - Victoria Street Revitalisation

Option 2 – September 2016 Plan

Option 3 – Maintain Existing Layout

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 Ngai Tahu, their culture and traditions.

 

Matapopore are engaged on this project to provide cultural advice on Ngai Tuahuriri/Ngai Tahu values, narratives, aspirations and include these in the design. These will likely be in the form of pedestrian pavement designs.

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 Ngai Tahu, their culture and traditions.

 

Matapopore were engaged on this project to provide cultural advice on Ngai Tuahuriri/Ngai Tahu values, narratives, aspirations and include these in the design. These will likely be in the form of pedestrian pavement designs.

 

No impacts on Mana Whenua identified with this option.

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

This option is consistent with Council Plans and Policies. It does not depart from the Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

 

This option is consistent with Council Plans and Policies. It does not depart from the Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan.

This option is not consistent with Council Plans and Policies. The Transport Chapter of the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan and the Fy2018 – FY 2028 Long Term Plan identifies Victoria Street for revitalisation.

·  


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a  

Victoria Street - Preferred Option

 

b  

Victoria Street Approved Plan - September 2016

 

c  

Victoria Street Re-Engagement Report

 

d  

Victoria Street Re-Engagement Submissions

 

 

 

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

Stefan Jermy - Project Manager

Sharon O'Neill - Team Leader Project Management Transport

Jennie Hamilton - Senior Engagement Advisor

Judith Cheyne - Associate General Counsel

Michael Thomson - Transport Engineer

Sarah Kelly - Manager Strategic Communications

Approved By

Lynette Ellis - Manager Planning and Delivery Transport

Peter Langbein - Finance Business Partner

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

David Adamson - General Manager City Services

 


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

29 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


Council

29 August 2019

 

 

10.   2019/20 Strategy and Policy Forward Work Programme

Reference:

19/967965

Presenter(s):

Emma Davis - Head of Strategic Policy

 

 

Secretarial Note: This item was referred to this meeting from 22 August 2019 meeting. 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       To provide an update on the Council-wide strategy and policy forward work programme for 2019/20.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       The strategy and policy forward work programme (FWP) provides a high-level portfolio view for elected members of the strategy and policy work underway across the whole organisation.  This update of the FWP is structured according to the strategic priorities and sets out work planned for the 2019/20 year as requested by the Council when it last received a formal report on this matter on 13 December 2018.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Council:

1.         Review the attached policy work programme for 2019/20 and provide feedback.

2.         Note that the next update on the policy work programme will be scheduled for after the local body elections and cover work planned for the next triennium.

4.   Context/Background

Issue or Opportunity

4.1       This update on work planned for the 2019/20 year is an opportunity for elected members to provide feedback on the policy work programme.

Decision Making Authority

4.2       The Council last reviewed the strategy and policy forward work programme in December 2018 when it was agreed that the next FWP update would focus on the 2019/20 year (CNCL/2018/00332).  Council discussions in December also suggested that the subsequent FWP update be scheduled shortly after the local body elections and look ahead to work planned for the next three year-term.  This will give an opportunity for the new Council to consider its priorities and then the FWP can be aligned against the new Council’s priorities.

Strategic priorities and climate change

4.3       The attached update groups policy projects by the Council’s strategic priorities.  The first section includes major projects which are closely aligned to all six strategic priorities because they encompass so many areas of Council business – this includes the policy work involved in development of the Long Term Plan, Infrastructure Strategy, Financial Strategy and Rating Policy.

4.4       The update then works through the six strategic priorities, starting with the two recently highlighted by the Council as particularly critical and urgent – climate change leadership and safe and sustainable water supply and improved waterways.

4.5       Regulatory policy projects are covered at the end of the update.

Timeframe and mandate

4.6       Information on the original mandate for policy projects is now included where available, and changes to the project timeframe noted, as requested by the Council.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2019/20 Strategy and Policy Forward Work Programme

475

 

 

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

Elizabeth Wilson - Senior Policy Analyst

Approved By

Emma Davis - Head of Strategic Policy

Brendan Anstiss - General Manager Strategy and Transformation

  


Council

29 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

 

 



[1] RL stands for Reduced Level and is a standard term for survey points.  By way of comparison, the McCormacks Bay causeway is RL 11.2m and the Beachville Road sea wall is RL 11.4m.