Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

An ordinary meeting of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board will be held on:

 

Date:                                    Monday 5 August 2019

Time:                                    3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

5 August 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Arohanui Grace

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6663

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

Part A          Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B          Reports for Information

Part C          Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staff Reports

A         7.        Lancaster Park Spatial Plan................................................. 13

C         8.        Provision of School Bus Stops with time of day parking restrictions at redundant Metro bus stops on Tanner Street.... 27

C         9.        Proposed Road Names - 96 Olliviers Road.............................. 35

B         10.     Redevelopment of Linwood College....................................... 39

C         11.     Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund - Community Board Projects.......................... 45

 

B         12.     Elected Members’ Information Exchange....................................... 56 

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 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.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

That the minutes of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Wednesday, 24 July 2019  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum

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

5.   Deputations by Appointment

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

5.1

Lancaster Park Spatial Plan

 

Marie Bryne will speak on behalf of Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust regarding the Lancaster Park Spatial Plan.

 

Ric Horsfall will speak on behalf of Christchurch Metro Cricket and the Lancaster Park Cricket Club regarding the Lancaster Park Spatial Plan.

 

Tony Smail, will speak on behalf of Canterbury Rugby Football Union, regarding the Lancaster Park Spatial Plan.

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

Unconfirmed

 

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Wednesday 24 July 2019

Time:                                    10am

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Jake McLellan

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Brenda Lowe-Johnson

Deon Swiggs

Sara Templeton

 

 

24 July 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Arohanui Grace

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6663

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A          Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B          Reports for Information

Part C          Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00078

That an apology from Alexandra Davids for early departure and an apology for lateness from Dion Swiggs be accepted.

Jake McLellan/Sara Templeton                                                                                            Carried

 

2.   Declarations of Interest

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

 

4.   Public Forum

Part B

 

4.1      Munro Playground (formally 124 Garlands Road)

Part B

Ms Jenn Benden, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding local residents wishing to create a community space on Munro Playground reserve. 

After questions from the members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Benden for her presentation.

The Board requested that contact details for the Chesterfields Reserve group and the Council’s urban rangers be forwarded to Ms Benden.

 

Deon Swiggs arrived at the meeting at 10:15 a.m.

Brenda Lowe-Johnson arrived at the meeting at 10:16 a.m.

 

4.2      Safer Sumner

Part B

Ms Kath Preston, representing Safer Sumner, spoke to the Board regarding Safer Sumner’s concerns around the long drawn out process to get crime cameras installed in Sumner. 

After questions from the members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Preston for her presentation.

The Board requested a workshop be held with Safer Sumner, New Zealand Police, staff and the Board to progress the Sumner Crime Camera project.

 

The Board requested urgent staff advice on the process of installing crime cameras.

3.   Confirmation of Previous Minutes

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00079

That the minutes of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 1 July 2019 be confirmed.

Jake McLellan/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                   Carried

5.   Deputations by Appointment

Part B

There were no deputations by appointment.

6.   Presentation of Petitions

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

14  Correspondence

 

Correspondence from Mr Greg Partridge regarding the Board’s 1 July 2019 meeting was tabled.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00080

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.    Receives the correspondence from Mr Greg Partridge.

Sara Templeton/Deon Swiggs                                                                                                 Carried

 

Attachments

a         Clause 6 - Correspondence - Mr Greg Partridge 24 July 2019   

 

 

8.   Council-Community Board Governance Partnership Agreement and Delegations

 

Board Comment

The Board supported the review of Plan A (Central City delegations) noting that there are large  areas inside the plan that are residential and that there will be more planned central city residential areas.

 

Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Endorse the proposed partnership approach to governance between the Council and Community Boards.

2.        Confirm the Community Board’s approval of the Council-Community Board Governance Partnership Agreement (Attachment A).

3.        Delegate to the Chair the authority to sign the Council-Community Board Governance Partnership Agreement (Attachment A) on behalf of the Community Board.

4.        Note that the new delegations agreed by the Council will take effect on 1 August 2019.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00081

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Endorses the proposed partnership approach to governance between the Council and Community Boards.

2.        Confirms the Community Board’s approval of the Council-Community Board Governance Partnership Agreement (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

3.        Delegates to the Chair the authority to sign the Council-Community Board Governance Partnership Agreement (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report). on behalf of the Community Board.

4.        Notes that the new delegations agreed by the Council will take effect on 1 August 2019.

5.        Notes the importance of revising Plan A of the Community Board delegations as part of the Delegations Review Stage 2.  The Board requests that this work be progressed early in the term of the new Council, or earlier if possible, due to the increasing residential areas within the central city.

Alexandra Davids/Tim Lindley                                                                                                 Carried

Note: Brenda Johnson-Lowe abstained from voting.

 

 

9.   Markings of Existing Bus Stops on Bridle Path Road near Tunnel Road

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00082 (Original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to approve Option 1:

Marked bus stop beside 20 Bridle Path Road, referred to as ‘A1’:

1.        Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Bridle Path Road referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing 19/635904, dated 20/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

2.        Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Bridle Path Road referred to as A1, identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing 19/635904, dated 20/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

Marked bus stop opposite 18 Bridle Path Road, referred to as ‘A2’:

3.        Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Bridle Path Road referred to as A2 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing 19/635904, dated 20/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

4.        Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Bridle Path Road referred to as A2, identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing 19/635904, dated 20/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

5.        That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in in 1.,2.,3. or 4. are revoked.

6.        That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in1.,2.,3. and 4  are in place.

Jake McLellan/Tim Lindley                                                                                                       Carried

 

 

10. Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Holly Road

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00083 (Original Staff Recommendations accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        That under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on road narrowing of Holly Rd as shown by broken yellow lines on the drawing TG133742, issue.1 23/03/2019 attached to the agenda report.

2.        Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report.

3.        Approves that these resolutions take effect when the markings that evidence the restrictions described in 1. are in place. 

Deon Swiggs/Alexandra Davids                                                                                               Carried

 

 

7.   Briefings

 

Board Comment

The Board acknowledged the work of the Programme Management Heritage Team have done to enable Council’s remaining heritage buildings to be saved and used.

 

Staff Recommendation

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Notes the information supplied during the Briefings.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00084

Part B

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Briefings.

2.         Requests the landscaping and access plans for Penfolds Cottage be provided to the Board.

Deon Swiggs/Jake McLellan                                                                                                    Carried

 

11. Taylors Mistake Beach - Proposed Consultation on Process to Facilitate Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club Rebuild

 

Board Comment

The Board discussed the rebuild of the Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club and wished to assist the club by expediting process for the Council’s approval.

 

Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Approves the commencement of public consultation pursuant to section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 for a lease to Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated over the portion of land Lot 7 DP 6419 shown as Area E on Attachment E, for a term of 35 years (minus 1 day).

2.        Approves the commencement of public consultation for the proposal to grant a deed of licence to the Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for a structure on legal road over the portion of legal road shown as Areas A, B, C, and D, on Attachment E, which will involve a departure from Council policy. 

3.        Notes that the outcome of the public consultation will be reported back to the Community Board for their consideration and recommendation to Council regarding a future lease and licence to Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00085

Part C

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Approves the commencement of public consultation pursuant to section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002 for a lease to Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated over the portion of land Lot 7 DP 6419 shown as Area E on Attachment E, attached to the agenda for the meeting, for a term of 35 years (minus 1 day).

2.        Approves the commencement of public consultation for the proposal to grant a deed of licence to the Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club Incorporated for a structure on legal road over the portion of legal road shown as Areas A, B, C, and D, on Attachment E, attached to the agenda for the meeting, which will involve a departure from Council policy. 

3.        Notes that the outcome of the public consultation will be reported back to the Community Board for their consideration and recommendation to Council regarding a future lease and licence to Taylors Mistake Surf Life Saving Club.

4.        Requests staff advice on whether the final decision on the licence can be delegated from the Council to the Community Board, and the implications of this.

Sara Templeton/Tim Lindley                                                                                                   Carried

 

 

12. Application to Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2018/19 Discretionary Response Fund - Sumner Crime Cameras

 

The report was withdrawn prior to the meeting.

 

Alexandra Davids left the meeting at 11.30a.m.

13. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

 

The following information was exchanged at this meeting:

·    Redcliffs Resident – The Board were advised about the frustration of a Redcliffs resident who is planning to build in the Higher Flood Management Plan Area. 

·    Sumner Red Zone land – The Board were advised that Land Information New Zealand had removed a dirt track built by local youth during the recent school holidays because of health and safety issues. (e,g. rockfall, cliff collapse).

·    Margaret Mahy BBQ Breakfast – The Board discussed concerns raised by a group who were going to the park for a barbecue breakfast. 

·    Oranga Tamariki Hui – The Board were advised that a hui is being held in Christchurch on 31 July 2019 regarding Oranga Tamariki. 

·    Poroporoaki – The Board were advised that a poroporoaki has been arranged for Brenda Lowe-Johnson at Rehua Marae on 4 October at 1pm.

 

13.1   Maces Road Flooding

The Board discussed the high level of rainfall over June and July.

The Board requested an update on progress with measures to control the flooding in Maces Road, Bromley.

 

13.2   Council Cemeteries

The Board discussed a recent pauper grave burial and the removal of ornaments, including plastic flowers, from the grave.

The Board requested that staff provide seminar on cemeteries including the terms and conditions of paupers graves, and the ability to have headstones and ornaments on those graves.

The Board requested staff advice on the Board area cemeteries landscape plans.

 

13.3   MOA Reserve

The Board discussed the long term flooding issue in MOA Reserve.

The Board requested staff advice on the progress with measures to alleviate the flooding in MOA Reserve.

 

Meeting concluded at 11:45 a.m.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

7.     Lancaster Park Spatial Plan

Reference:

19/608186

Presenter(s):

Kelly Hansen, Manager Parks Planning and Asset Management

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to recommend to the Council to approve the proposed spatial plan for Lancaster Park and to delegate approval of a future landscape plan to the Community Board.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1      A spatial plan for Lancaster Park is needed as a first step in the process of re-developing Lancaster Park to assist in understanding the various proposed park uses and potential activity zones required to meet community needs.  The spatial plan will inform demolition requirements and any potential savings and efficiencies.

2.2      Two spatial plan options (Attachments A and B) were prepared and discussed with the Community Board and with selected community and sports groups.

2.3      Incorporating feedback from the Community Board and community, the two options have subsequently been combined into one draft spatial plan (Attachment C) for approval.

2.4      The draft spatial plan balances community and sports needs, provides a generous amount of informal public open space and recreation, opportunities to recognise and reflect on the heritage of the park, and space for a possible community facility if required.

2.5      Once approved, the spatial plan will be used to identify opportunities to make financial savings on the current demolition of the facilities at Lancaster Park by retaining some material on site.

2.6      The spatial plan will form the basis of the next stage of detailed landscape planning and design for the park.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board recommends to the Council:

1.        To approve the draft spatial plan,

2.        That the Council delegates approval of a future landscape plan for Lancaster Park to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

 

4.   Context/Background

Issue or Opportunity

4.1      Lancaster Park was badly damaged in the earthquakes and an opportunity exists to re-develop the park.

4.2      At its meeting on 13 December 2018, the Council resolved to retain Lancaster Park for the purposes specified in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008, namely rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

4.3      A workshop was held with the Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board on 18 February 2019 to discuss the engagement plan for the redevelopment of Lancaster Park. Engagement is to occur over two stages. The first stage (now complete) was to engage with key groups and individuals to develop a spatial plan, a preliminary interpretation of how the various potential uses of the park can be catered for within the available space. This spatial plan is needed to identify opportunities for efficiencies in the stadium demolition. The second stage of engagement involves consulting with the wider community to prepare a more detailed landscape plan for the park based on the approved spatial plan.

4.4      The demolition of structures at Lancaster Park is underway, with an expected completion date of late 2019. The spatial plan can be used to identify areas on the park where some of the deeper foundation material could potentially remain on site along with existing hard stand areas that could be re-used as car parking, therefore reducing overall demolition costs. Any savings could potentially be re-directed into the re-development of the park.

4.5      There is an open space deficiency in the area of Lancaster Park identified in the Public Open Space Strategy 2010-2040. Redeveloping Lancaster Park will help to address this gap in the open space network.

4.6      There is a high level of deprivation in the area compared to the rest of the city. There is also a higher proportion of people under 40 years of age than for Christchurch City and a higher proportion of Maori and Pacific people.

4.7      There is no identified gap in the play space network with playgrounds available nearby at Cross Reserve (550m) and Charleston Reserve (260m). Washington Reserve is 950m away.

4.8      There is demand for improved quality of sports facilities in the south east area of the city. A number of fields, particularly along the base of the Port Hills, have drainage issues in wet weather and sometimes cannot be used. New fields at Lancaster Park will increase network capacity to meet the sporting needs of communities in the south east and will provide an opportunity to reconsider current field allocations and expenditure.

4.9      Major sporting codes have been united in showing a strong interest in establishing shared facilities on the park. For efficient and effective functionality of the park and facilities, maximising the number of sports fields while still allowing ample space for community activities is important.

4.10    Council staff held a workshop on 8 April 2019 with selected community groups representing sporting and wider community interests to understand potential future uses of Lancaster Park. A list of groups that attended the workshop can be found in Attachment D.

4.11    Several non-negotiables were identified and discussed at the workshop and incorporated into the spatial plan options: 

4.11.1 The Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008 - The Act vested all of the land at Lancaster Park in the Council, to be held in trust for the purposes of rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

4.11.2 The heritage gates and setting on Stevens Street - After World War 1 the Victory Park Board erected memorial gates to specifically commemorate the sacrifice of Canterbury athletes during the war. These gates and their setting are to be preserved in any proposed development.

4.11.3 Most of the existing trees are in reasonable condition and worth retaining. A few poor condition trees will need to be removed. However, it is preferable that the majority of the trees on site remain.

4.11.4 A major cycleway exists on Wilsons Road, with a signalled crossing proposed at the intersection with Charles Street. Any proposed development at Lancaster Park needs to address how cycling and walking will interact with the park.

4.11.5 The park is zoned Metropolitan Open Space in the District Plan, suitable for major sports facilities and larger recreation facilities.

4.11.6 Most of the park is subject to the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008. There are some smaller parcels of land, mainly on the Wilson Road boundary, that are held as fee simple and are not subject to the Act. It is on these specific areas that a wider range of uses could potentially occur.

4.11.7 There is an existing easement off Stevens Street on the western edge of the park, along with an Orion services box off Wilsons Road. These easements have minimal impact on the ability to develop this site.

4.11.8 Any proposed development needs to consider the immediate surrounding residential areas.

4.12    Desired activities identified by participants at the workshop can be summarised into four broad areas:

4.12.1 Prioritising sports fields as a key component of any development,

4.12.2 Retaining a connection to the history of Lancaster Park and the activities that have previously occurred there,

4.12.3 Providing public open space for local residents,

4.12.4 Allowing space for a potential community facility to be developed on site if required.

4.13    Two spatial plan options reflecting the input of the workshop participants, were presented to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on 17 June 2019. The Board indicated a preference for a significant amount of informal open space on the park, balanced with sports facilities.

4.14    Feedback on the two options was then sought from the community and sports groups that had been previously engaged.

4.15    Community groups indicated the following:

4.15.1 There was agreement that the park is large enough to accommodate the identified needs of sporting groups and the local community,

4.15.2 The groups were keen to see a focus on ensuring the park is seen as a space that can be used by all; not just organised sports user groups. A number of ideas were floated that would help manage the perceptions of use (community events, signage etc),

4.15.3 The groups were keen to investigate if former roses adjacent to the Heritage gates could be re-instated,

4.15.4 A small museum within the Heritage gates was proposed as a future possibility,

4.15.5 Interpretation signs could be placed around the walkway as points of interest,

4.15.6 The playground could be themed on previous sporting activities on the park,

4.15.7 It was suggested that car parking be available for local businesses and customers, if practical,

4.15.8 Consider some car parking being closer to the playground (note there is on street parking available),

4.15.9 Ensuring any stadium remnant was safe,

4.15.10 Possible basketball space.

4.16    Sports groups (rugby union, cricket and football) indicated the following:

4.16.1 There was agreement amongst the sporting codes that one cricket oval would be acceptable (as opposed to two),

4.16.2 Sports codes were motivated for the park to be a shared community sport space for all levels of competition and a variety of codes and encouraged community use of the fields outside of sports training and games,

4.16.3 Any usage by specific sports will be based on identified need for space and this will be managed through the Council annual field allocation process,

4.16.4 To enable premier grade cricket to be played on the park, some specialist spaces would be required and have been included in the spatial plan, including:

·      Player shelter / change/ toilet,

·      Small kitchen space (due to length of senior games),

·      Storage (for ground maintenance equipment),

·      Practice nets.

4.17    Council staff have reviewed all feedback on the spatial plan options from the community and sports groups and the Community Board and this has been combined into an updated draft spatial plan.

4.18    Further analysis will be required during the preparation of a more detailed landscape plan to determine the optimal layout of spaces, in particular the potential to minimise the built infrastructure footprint on Lancaster Park and maximise the open space.

4.19    The landscape plan will provide the detail required for preliminary cost estimates for implementation.

Strategic Alignment

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

4.20.1 Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·      Level of Service: 6.8.1.6 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner- (Provision) - 100% of sports field capacity not exceeded.

Decision Making Authority

4.21    Lancaster Park is a metropolitan asset and decision making is the responsibility of the Council.

Previous Decisions

4.22    At its meeting on 13 December 2018, the Council resolved to retain Lancaster Park for the purposes specified in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008, namely rugby union, cricket, and all other sports, recreation, entertainment, public assembly, and for other purposes ancillary to those purposes.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

4.24    The level of significance was determined by the high level of community interest already apparent; the number of people affected; the level of impact; and, possible benefits/opportunities to the Council, ratepayers and wider community.

 

5.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

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

·   Option one – Approve Draft Spatial Plan (Attachment C)

·   Option two – Do not redevelop Lancaster Park

Options Descriptions

5.2      Preferred Option: Option one - Approve Draft Spatial Plan

5.2.1   Option Description: Approve the draft spatial plan that has been prepared with community input to balance space for sports facilities with recreation, community, and heritage opportunities.

5.2.2   Option Advantages

·      Efficient provision of sports facilities by maximising the number of fields in one location for the widest range of sporting uses and maximised use of pavilion and car parking,

·      Increases capacity to meet sporting needs in the south east of the city currently restrained by a number of poor quality fields,

·      Increased spots field capacity will provide an opportunity to reconsider current field allocations and expenditure in the area,

·      Accommodates all identified community needs,

·      Consistent with the purposes outlined in the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008.

5.2.3   Option Disadvantages

·      Significant cost to redevelop and maintain the park which is currently unfunded.

5.3      Option two – Do not redevelop Lancaster Park

5.3.1   Option Description: Tidy the site following demolition and leave as undeveloped green space.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·      Minimal cost,

·      Adds to open space network and allows for informal use and future development.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·      Does not meet community needs and expectations,

·      Does not fulfil the intention of the Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008,

·      Does address current issues with sports field capacity in the area.

Analysis Criteria

5.4      They key criteria used to assess the options are:

5.4.1   Identified needs of stakeholders (sport fields, open space, recreation, heritage and community spaces),

5.4.2   Alignment to the Council’s plans and priorities particularly sports facility planning,

5.4.3   Budget.

6.   Community Views and Preferences

6.1      At this stage in the process the views of key stakeholders, including relevant regional and club based sports organisations and community and neighbourhood groups have been canvassed.

6.2      Sports organisations that have provided input have noted the pressure that is currently placed on the current network of sports fields in the area and the need for improved quality playing surfaces. Artificial playing surfaces was suggested by some as a strategy to meet these needs, a possibility in the draft spatial plan.

6.3      Community groups see Lancaster Park’s redevelopment as an opportunity to gain additional public open space in an area of Christchurch that has poor pedestrian accessibility to moderately sized open spaces. Allocating space at Lancaster Park for a community facility was identified by community groups as a potential need.

6.4      Heritage representatives view the preservation of the Heritage Gates as being a priority along with acknowledging the history of Lancaster Park, potentially through interpretive displays.

6.5      There was general consensus that the various views and preferences could all be achieved within a re-development of the park.

6.6      Further community input and wider public consultation will help with the preparation of a more detailed landscape plan. 

7.   Legal Implications

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

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

8.   Risks

8.1      Development of Lancaster Park is not currently funded. Funding will be sought in the 2022-31 Long Term Plan for implementation of an approved landscape plan.

9.   Next Steps

9.1      Following Council approval of the spatial plan, Council staff will prepare a more detailed landscape plan in consultation with the community for Community Board approval. Funding will be sought in the 2022-31 Long Term Plan for implementation.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

10. Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Spatial Plan one

Option 2 – Do not develop

 

Cost to Implement

Total cost to implement is likely to be $5-7m depending on design detail following demolition. Implementation can be staged according to funding availability.

Nil additional cost if site is grassed and vehicle barriers are installed after demolition.

Financial Implications

Maintenance/Ongoing

$36,000-$40,000 pa

$18,000 - $20,000 pa.

Funding Source

2022-31 LTP

NA

Impact on Rates

Unknown at this stage, for consideration in LTP.

Unknown at this stage, for consideration in LTP.

Criteria 1.  Climate Change Impacts

Potentially high irrigation requirements. Appropriate turf and plantings to match the environmental conditions will be important.

Possible irrigation requirements.

Criteria 2. Accessibility Impacts

Improved access to open space, sport and recreation facilities in an area deficient in open space.

Improved access to open space in an area deficient in open space.

Criteria 3. Health & Safety Impacts

Quality sport and recreation facilities will be safe to use.

Potential for space to become neglected and misused.

Criteria 4. Future Generation Impacts

Important open space opportunities in low socio economic area of increasing urban density.

Potential for future development of the site.

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Draft Spatial Plan

Option 2 – Do not develop

Impact on Mana Whenua

To be considered in next stage landscape plan design, not a significant maori site

To be considered in next stage landscape plan design, not a significant maori site

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Plugs an identified gap in open space sports facility network

Plugs an identified gap in open space network

Other Statutory Criteria

Complies with Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008

Does not meet intention of Christchurch City Council (Lancaster Park) Land Vesting Act 2008


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Lancaster Park Spatial Plan option one lp378101

22

b

Lancaster Park spatial plan option two lp378101

23

c

Lancaster Park Draft Spatial Plan

24

d

Lancaster Park Workshop 8 April 2019 attendees list

25

 

 

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

Kelly Hansen - Team Leader Recreation & Planning

Approved By

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Brent Smith - Acting General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

8.     Provision of School Bus Stops with time of day parking restrictions at redundant Metro bus stops on Tanner Street

Reference:

19/711768

Presenter(s):

Brenda O’Donoghue, Passenger Transport Engineer
Serena Chia, Graduate Transport Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider for approval, the installation of two school bus stops with time of day parking restrictions, to replace two redundant Metro bus stops on Tanner Street. 

2.   Executive Summary

2.1      This report is staff generated in response to a recent enquiry (ticket no. 106588) from a customer who would like both bus stops on Tanner Street to be removed for the use of on-street parking.

2.2      The bus stops have not been operating as Metro bus stops since November 2018, however they continue to be used by a school bus route.  To utilise the space when the school bus is not in service, and given the high parking demand in the area, staff are proposing to swap the existing regular bus stop signs to bus stop signs that include time of day parking restrictions, which will be reflective of the school bus timetable.

3.   Staff Recommendations 

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to approve Option 1:

1.        Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Tanner Street referred to as A1, identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing 19/751098, dated 25/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses between the time of 2:50pm – 3:50pm, Monday to Friday during school term times.

2.        Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Tanner Street referred to as A2, identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing 19/751098, dated 25/06/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses between the time of 8:00am – 9:00am, Monday to Friday during school term times.

3.        That any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in this report are revoked.

4.        That these resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the staff report are in place.

 

4.   Key points

4.1      The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure and the Service Plan for Parking in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2      The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 – Swap existing standard bus stop signs with time of day parking restriction bus stop signs (preferred option, refer to Figure 2 and Attachment A)

·      Option 2 – Do nothing, the existing bus stop signs remain

4.3      Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1   The advantage of this option includes:

·      Utilises the vacant bus stop space for on-street parking during the time of day when the school bus is not in service.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·      None.

5.   Context/Background

Overview of existing redundant bus stops

5.1      The bus stops have not been operating as Metro bus stops since November 2018, but are used by a school bus route for students who attend Cashmere High School. The location of the bus stops are shown in Figure 1.

  

Figure 1: Existing bus stops on Tanner Street

5.2      The school bus route operates once in the morning, to get students to school and once in the afternoon, to drop students home after school ends.

5.3      Should the Community Board approve the bus stop signs with time of day parking restriction to be installed, the existing regular bus stop signs will be swapped out with bus stop signs that show the time of day parking restrictions when the bus stops are in use. 

Strategic Alignment

5.4      The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure and the Service Plan for Parking that supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.4.1   Activity: Parking

·      Level of Service: 10.3.3.0 Improve customer perception of the ease of use of Council on- street parking facilities - =50%

Decision Making Authority

5.5      Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides Council with the authority to install parking restrictions by resolution.

5.6      The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations.  The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping restrictions and traffic control devices.

5.7      The installation of any signs and/or markings associated with traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

5.9      The level of significance was determined by considering the impact on Metro bus services (none), school bus services (limited) and existing demand for on-street parking (high).

 

6.   Options Analysis

Options Considered

6.1      The following options were considered and are assessed in this report:

·   Option 1 – Swap existing regular bus stop signs with time of day parking restriction bus stop signs.

·   Option 2 – Do nothing, the existing bus stop signs remain.

Options Descriptions   

6.2      Option 1 – Swap existing standard bus stop signs with time of day parking restriction bus stop signs.

6.2.1   Option Description:

·      The time of day where the bus stops have to be kept clear for the school bus to use are shown in Figure 2. The one hour allowance will alert people to the time of day when they need to keep the bus stop clear for a school bus to use.

·      Each bus box will allow space for two vehicles to park, which adds up to four on-street parking spaces in total.

Figure 2: Option 1, bus stops on Tanner Street with time of day parking restrictions

6.2.2   Option Advantages

·      Utilises the vacant bus stop space for on-street parking during the time of day when the school bus is not in service.

6.2.3   Option Disadvantages

·      None.

6.3      Option 2 – Do nothing, existing bus stop signs remain

6.3.1   Option Advantages:

·      None. The space will be left empty most of the time due to the school bus limited service.

6.3.2   Option Disadvantages:

·      Does not effectively utilise the vacant bus stop space when the school bus is not in service.

Analysis Criteria

6.4      Due to the limited operation of the school bus route, staff are recommending that the bus stops are designated by means of a bus stop sign that displays time of day parking restrictions, thereby allowing other motorists to utilise the space when the bus stops are not in operation

Options Considerations

6.5      Option 1 is consistent with the Council’s Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure and Service Plan for Parking (2018-2018).

6.6      Option 2 is not fully consistent with the Council’s Service Plan for Parking, as it could negatively impact the publics’ perception of the ease of use of Council on-street parking, where such improvements are feasible.

7.   Community Views and Preferences

7.1      This report is associated with a recent enquiry from a customer who would like the bus stops on Tanner Street converted for the use of on-street parking, given that they are no longer services by Metro buses.

7.2      Council staff have contacted Environmental Canterbury about the proposal to change the existing bus stop operation to time of day parking restrictions. Thereby by allowing continued use of the space for the school bus route, and by other motorists when the school bus is not in operation. 

7.3      Environment Canterbury staff have agreed that the proposal is a suitable compromise.

7.4      No letters were sent to affected residents and businesses. This is because the effect of the proposal has no negative impact to the businesses in the area and nearby properties. Hence no consultation from the public is included in this report. 

8.   Legal Implications

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

8.2      This specific report has not been reviewed and approved by the Legal Services Unit, however the report has been written using a general approach previously approved of by the Legal Services Unit. The recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework.

9.   Risks

9.1      Should the Community Board proceed with the ‘Do Nothing’ option, this could negatively impact the publics’ perception of the ease of use of Council’s on-street parking, where such improvements are feasible.  

10. Next Steps

10.1    Approval is required by the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

10.2    If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately six weeks of the Community Board approval. 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

11. Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1

Option 2 – (Do Nothing)

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$500 for the installation of traffic controls and $1000 for consultation and the preparation of this report

$1000 for consultation and the preparation of this report

Maintenance /Ongoing

Transport and City Streets, Operations Expenditure budget, includes maintenance of bus stop infrastructure, as and when it is needed.

$0

Funding Source

Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installations, plus existing staff budgets

Impact on Rates

No impact

Environmental Impacts

The existing bus stops provide access to a school bus service, which supports travel demand management and management of traffic congestion near schools.

Social & Community Impacts

This option will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city.

Option 2 would have a slight negative impact on social and community impact as it unnecessarily restricts and limits parking in a high parking demand area.

Accessibility Impacts

Accessibility impacts of this option benefit from providing access to school bus services for students living nearby.

Similar to Option 1 but also restricts accessibility to on-street parking when the school bus is not operating.

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1

Option 2

Impact on Mana Whenua

No impact

No impact

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

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

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Attachment A - Proposed school bus stops with time of day parking restrictions on Tanner Street - Plan No. 19/751098

36

 

 

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

Serena Chia - Graduate Transport Engineer

Brenda O'Donoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

9.     Proposed Road Names - 96 Olliviers Road

Reference:

19/771914

Presenter(s):

Paul Lowe, Principal Advisor Resource Consents

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider and approve the proposed road name arising from the subdivision at 96 Olliviers Road.

Origin of Report

1.2      This report is staff generated resulting from the naming request received from the subdivision developer.

1.3      This report relates to the subdivision at 96 Olliviers Road.

 

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to approve the following new road name:

1.        96 Olliviers Road (RMA/2019/761):

·        Fred Allen Lane

 

3.   Background

Introduction

3.1      Road naming requests have been submitted by the developer for 96 Olliviers Road (RMA/2019/761) subdivision. A preferred name and alternative names have been put forward by the developer

3.2      The recommended road and/or right-of-way names have been checked against existing road names in Christchurch and bordering districts, for duplication, alternative spelling, or other similarities in spelling or pronunciation to avoid the potential for confusion. The recommended names are considered sufficiently different to existing road names.

3.3      The recommended road and/or right-of-way names have been checked against the Council’s Roads and Right-of-Way Naming Policy dated 2 November 1993. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with this policy.

3.4      The recommended road and/or right-of-way names have been checked against the Australia and New Zealand Standard AS/NZA 4819:2011 Rural and urban addressing. The recommended names are considered to be consistent with the Standard unless otherwise stated below.

3.5      Under the Roads and Right-of-Way naming policy the names considered must be requested by the developer. There is not an ability to consider alternative names without first checking whether there are any duplications or similarities with other road and right-of-way names.

3.6      Consultation has been undertake with Land Information New Zealand who have raised no concerns with the proposed road names.

3.7      The developer has been in consultation with the local community in which the preferred name and first alternative have been suggestions from this consultation.

3.8      The request have been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which are summarised below.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

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

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

96 Olliviers Road (RMA/2019/761)

3.12    Road names have been requested by EWI Developments Limited for the right-of-way within the subdivision at 96 Olliviers Road. To view the right of way subject to this application refer to Attachment A.

3.13    The preferred and first alternative road name have been chosen in consultation with members of the local community - the applicant liaised directly with members of the Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust who put forward the below suggestions. A number of other names were also put forward but they were too similar to existing names hence why there are only two options provided below.

3.14    The preferred name followed by alternative name is set out below:

·        Fred Allen Lane – Frederick Richard Allen was a great captain and coach of the All Blacks who went to Phillipstown School as a pupil. The All Blacks won all 14 of the test matches they played under his coaching.

·        Gage Lane – Gage was the police dog shot and killed round the corner in Buccleugh Street in 2010 when his handler and another police officer were shot. At the time Gage, pedigree name Trentham Gage, was the 23rd police dog killed on duty.

3.15    Note on Te Reo Names: The Community Board have expressed a preference to include Te Reo options in road naming reports.  Introducing Te Reo names into this process is not straight forward. While developers are being advised of this preference, there is not yet a formal process in place to determine when a Te Reo name should be selected for a site or how to assess whether it is culturally appropriate.  While the work has started, this is likely to take some time to work through.  Previously most Te Reo names have been submitted by Ngāi Tahu Property. I understand that an update on this matter is to be provided by the Head of Resource Consents.

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

96 Olliviers Road - Plan

40

 

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a)  This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Katie Akacich - Resource Consents Support Officer

Paul Lowe - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Carolyn Gallagher - Acting General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

10.  Redevelopment of Linwood College

Reference:

19/655572

Presenter(s):

Marilyn Regnault, Principal Advisor – Resource Consents

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1      To provide advice on the Council’s staff involvement with the redevelopment of Linwood College.

2.   Executive Summary

2.1      The Ministry of Education proposes to demolish all existing buildings and replace with new buildings to result in a full redevelopment of Linwood College.  Council has accepted an Outline Plan of Works for the proposal that includes consideration of transport-related matters.

3.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Receive this report for information on the development of the school.

 

4.   Context/Background

Issue or Opportunity

4.1      Linwood College is a state funded co-educational school with a current roll of 635 Year 7 – 13 students.  The College was damaged by the 2011 Earthquakes which saw a two-term relocation off-site and demolition of some buildings.  The Ministry now considers the College has out-dated facilities.

4.2      All existing buildings are to be demolished and six new buildings are proposed to accommodate a roll of 850 students and 65 full time equivalent staff.  The new buildings include;

·     The Creativity and Innovation building

·     The Gymnasium

·     The Learning Hub

·     The Multi-purpose building

·     The Teen Parent Unit

·     A Plant Room

4.3      In terms of transport issues;

·     The main car parking area off Aldwins Road will provide 31 standard car parks and two accessible parks for staff and visitors and one 99% car park/loading bay.

·     A second vehicle access from Aldwins Road is proposed to the north of the site, in front of the Creativity and Innovation building and will be used by staff and service vehicles with five additional car parks including a heavy vehicle bay and one for a dental van.

·     There will be no student parking provided on site.

·     A total of 54 cycle parking spaces will be provided under the veranda of the Gymnasium building for students, staff and visitors.

·     The existing school bus stop is proposed to be repositioned further north along Aldwins Road from its current location and combined with the metro bus stop to provide a bus bay that will accommodate three buses outside the Creativity and Innovation building.

Legislative Requirements

4.4      The site is designated for secondary school purposes.  Section 176A(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires that where works on designated sites are proposed, then an outline plan is to be submitted by the requiring authority (Ministry of Education) to the Council for acceptance prior to the commencement of construction.

4.5      An Outline Plan must show (as appropriate):

·     the height, shape, and bulk of the work, and its location on the site

·     the likely finished contours of the site

·     vehicular access, circulation and parking

·     any proposed landscaping; and

·     any other matters to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment.

 

4.6      The Council may accept the Outline Plan of Works as submitted, or alternatively request changes. If changes are requested these must relate to the matters referred to above. Council also has no scope to place conditions or recommend that the proposal be notified or declined.  The District Plan provisions (rules and standards) do not apply to works on designated sites, however they do provide a useful guide when considering the acceptability of any potential effects associated with the works.

Council’s Planning Role in the Redevelopment

4.7      The Ministry of Education applied for an Outline Plan of Works in late December 2018.  Council considered the  effects of the following aspects of the development;

·     visual effects of the new buildings,

·     landscaping,

·     potential sources of noise,

·     crime prevention,

·     construction and earthworks,

·     natural hazards – particularly flooding,

·     waterways – development near Bells Creek, and

·     transport matters including safety, parking, public and active transport and key routes to the site.

4.8      Transport Issues

The application included a Transport Assessment from Aurecon.  Council raised concerns over the potential for traffic congestion during peak periods and the provision of sufficient on-site vehicle and cycle parking.  One key query Council’s Transport engineer raised related to better understanding the effects of observed behaviours where students are crossing the road recklessly and parents parking inappropriately and what mitigation is proposed. While Council cannot formally request further information for an Outline Plan of Works application, the Ministry of Education agreed to provide the requested information to address Council’s concerns.

4.9      In summary, the Ministry proposed to undertake a School Travel Plan to address traffic generation issues including addressing any traffic safety issues and any required infrastructure upgrades.   The potential for increased levels of cycling (and other active travel modes) is also be addressed through a School Travel Plan. 

4.10    The Christchurch City Council provides professional Community Travel Advisors to work alongside schools to provide guidance, information and associated resources to develop the School Travel Plan and programme. Linwood College confirmed they will undertake a School Travel Plan and through this process address potential transport safety concerns.

4.11    The Council’s planner’s report for the Outline Plan details that the School Travel Plan is appropriate in this instance to address any safety concerns, for the following reasons:

·    Council Community Travel Advisor Sarah Cooper has confirmed that traffic safety can be addressed through a School Travel Plan.

·    A School Travel Plan is a living document that can be adapted to take into account matters such as roll increase (which is proposed for this school), change in travel demand and change in zone catchments.

·    The proposal is to re-develop an existing school on an existing school site and therefore the receiving environment plays a role in traffic safety. Along Aldwins Road, which is a major arterial road, there is existing infrastructure adjoining the school. This includes a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing. The proposed main school entrance will be directly in front of this crossing.

·    It is likely that the scale of potential adverse safety effects cannot yet be sufficiently quantified until the new school is operational which can be accounted for through the School Travel Plan.

 

4.12    Council accepted the Outline Plan of Works with no request for changes to be made.  The acceptance included advice notes detailing the School’s undertaking to progress a School Travel Plan with Christchurch City Council's Community Travel Advisors prior to the operation of the school commencing. Among other things, the Travel Plan will include:

·    Investigation of the key traffic safety concerns and ways of addressing this, including consideration of whether a school speed zone is warranted or not.

·    Investigation of cycle parking demand and whether additional cycle parks are required.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood College Proposed Site Layout

45

 

 

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

Marilyn Regnault - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Carolyn Gallagher - Acting General Manager Consenting and Compliance

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

11.  Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund - Community Board Projects

Reference:

19/690289

Presenter(s):

Arohanui Grace, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1      The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider an application for funding from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund from the organisation(s) listed below.

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

59681

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Community Awards

$6,000

$6,000

59689

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Summer with your neighbours

$6,000

$6,000

59690

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

2019/20 Light Bulb Moments Fund

$4,000

$4,000

59691

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

2019/20 Youth Development Fund

$15,000

$15,000

59684

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Community Recreation Events

$7,000

$7,000

59686

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE)

$17,000

$17,000

59687

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Communicating with the Community

$3,000

$3,000

59692

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Ōpāwaho to Ihutai

$20,000

$20,000

N/A

Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Greening the East

$0

$0

 

1.2      The current balance is still to be confirmed for 2019/20.

2.   Staff Recommendations

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.        Approves a grant of $6,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Community Awards.

2.        Approves a grant of $6,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Summer with your neighbours.

3.        Approves a grant of $4,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the 2019/20 Light Bulb Moments Fund and establish the fund.

4.        Approves a grant of $15,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the 2019/20 Youth Development Fund and establish the fund.

5.        Approves a grant of $7,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Community Recreation Events.

6.        Approves a grant of $17,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards Linwood Youth Festival Experience (LYFE).

7.        Approves a grant of $3,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards Communicating with the Community.

8.        Approves a grant of $20,000 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund towards the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai Project.

 

3.   Key Points

Issue or Opportunity

3.1      To provide funding opportunities as detailed in the matrices attached.

Strategic Alignment

3.2      The recommendation is strongly aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of Strengthening Communities.  It will provide a strong sense of community, active participation in civic life, safe and healthy communities, celebration of our identity through arts, culture, heritage and sport, valuing the voices of children and young people.

Decision Making Authority

3.3      The Community Board has the delegated authority to determine the allocation of the Discretionary Response Fund for each community

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

3.3.2   The Fund does not cover:

·      Legal challenges or Environment Court challenges against the Council, Council Controlled organisations or Community Board decisions

·      Projects or initiatives that change the scope of a Council project or that will lead to ongoing operational costs to the Council (though Community Boards can recommend to the Council that it consider a grant for this purpose).

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

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

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

Discussion

3.7      At the time of writing, the balance of the 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2019/20

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

TBA

$0

TBA

TBA

 

3.8      Based on the current Discretionary Response Fund criteria, the application listed above is eligible for funding.

3.9      The attached Decision Matrix provides detailed information for the application.  This includes organisational details, project details, financial information and a staff assessment.

 

 

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

2019/20 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Matrices - Community Board Projects ($5000 and over)

50

b

2019/20 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Discretionary Response Fund Matrices - Community Board Projects (Under $5000)

56

 

 

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

Amanda Black - Support Officer

Approved By

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

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

05 August 2019

 

 

12.   Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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