Agenda of Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

Unconfirmed

Waipuna

Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

Open Minutes

Date: Tuesday 19 November 2019

Time: 4.32pm

Venue: Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, Corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, Fendalton

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Mike Mora

Andrei Moore

Helen Broughton

Jimmy Chen

Catherine Chu

Anne Galloway

Debbie Mora

Mark Peters

19 November 2019

Matthew Pratt

Manager Community Governance, Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton

941 5428

matthew.pratt@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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 / Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00124

That the apology received for absence from Gamal Fouda, be accepted.

Mike Mora/Debbie Mora Carried

2. Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

3. Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua

Part C

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00125

That the minutes of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Inaugural Meeting held on Wednesday 6 November 2019, be confirmed.

Mark Peters/Mike Mora Carried

4. Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

4.1

Keep Christchurch Beautiful

Linda Keall, Manager of Keep Christchurch Beautiful, addressed the Board on the activities and programmes undertaken by Keep Christchurch Beautiful.

The Chairperson thanked Linda Keall for her presentation.

4.2

Spreydon Youth Community Trust

Jason Chee and Dave Graham, on behalf of Spreydon Youth Community Trust, addressed the Board on the activities of the Trust including the mentoring of youth in Halswell and of their plans to expand this work to include intermediate aged young people.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Jason and Dave for the presentation.

4.3 Riccarton Centre

Garth Wilson, local resident, addressed the Board on his concerns about the portion of the Riccarton Centre to be utilised by staff and expressed the view that this aspect had not been consulted on.

Mr Wilson indicated that that he would be taking this matter further.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Wilson for his presentation.

The Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board agreed to request feedback from staff on:

1. The amount of space to be occupied by staff at the Riccarton Centre.

2. The reason that public consultation was not undertaken.

3. The proposed removal of governance related space at the Hornby Library, Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre.

5. Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

5.1

Platinum Drive – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Robin Odams, Chair of the Summerset Wigram Residents’ Association, addressed the Board in support of the proposed Platinum Drive Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Odams for his presentation.

Item 10 of these minutes records the Board’s decision on this matter.

Attachments

a Robin Odams - Platinum Drive - Presentation

5.2

Platinum Drive – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Mel Jackson, local resident, addressed the Board in opposition of the proposed Platinum Drive Proposed No Stopping Restrictions.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Mr Jackson for his presentation.

Item 10 of these minutes records the Board’s decision on this matter.

Attachments

a Mel Jackson - Platinum Drive - Presentation

b David Rankin - Platinum Drive - Tabled Document

6. Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

7. Correspondence

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00126 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part B

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1. Receive the correspondence from the Greater Hornby Residents’ Association regarding the Suffragette Memorial at Denton Park and that staff be asked to consider the provision of recognition signage on the Main South Road frontage.

Mike Mora/Anne Galloway Carried

10. Platinum Drive - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
	Staff in attendance spoke to the accompanying report. The Board also took into consideration the deputations from Robin Odams and Mel Jackson. (Items 5.1 and 5.2 of these minutes refers).
	Staff Recommendations Option 1 That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to: 1. Approve under Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the part of Platinum Drive and Colt Place as indicated by ‘Proposed No Stopping Restriction’ in Drawing TG133743 Issue 1, dated 23-3-2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report. 2. Revoke 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 the agenda staff report. 3. Approve that the resolutions in 1. and 2. above take effect when there is evidence that the restrictions described in the agenda staff report are in place. Option 2 That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to: 1. Approve under Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the part of Platinum Drive and Colt Place as indicated by ‘Proposed No Stopping Restriction’, and that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited from Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm on the part of Platinum Drive as indicated by ‘Proposed Time Restricted No Stopping’ as indicated in Drawing TG133743 Issue 1, dated 26-6-2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report. 2. Revoke 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 the agenda staff report. 3. Approve that the resolutions in 1. and 2. above take effect when there is evidence that the restrictions described in the agenda staff report are in place.
	Community Board Decided HHRB/2019/00127 Part B That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to: 1. Let the report lie on the table for a site visit to be held at Summerset Village with local residents, Summerset Village residents and management, and Council staff to further discuss the proposed parking restrictions in Platinum Drive. 2. That enforcement of on street parking activity occurring in Platinum Drive in the vicinity of the vehicle entrance to Summerset Village, be requested with immediate effect. 3. That legal advice be sought on whether the Summerset Village onsite staff carparks have to be used by their staff in accordance with its resource consent. Mike Mora/Mark Peters Carried

8. Springmead Park - Orion Kiosk Easement

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00128 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1. Approve the granting of a new easement in favour of Orion New Zealand Limited, to convey electricity over 5.5m2 of Springmead Park being Lot 27 DP 28406 of Title 90924.

2. Note that resolution 1. above will be subject to the consent of the Minister of Conservation as per Section 48 (1) of the Reserves Act 1977. In this regard, endorse the Chief Executive, acting under sub delegation from the Council, to exercise the Minister of Conservation’s consent to the easement, as delegated to the Council from the Minister under the Instrument of Delegation for Territorial Authorities dated 12 June 2013.

3. Delegate authority to the Manager Property Consultancy, to conclude and sign all documentation in relation to resolution 1. above.

Mike Mora/Jimmy Chen Carried

9. Hickory Place - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00129 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1. Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at all times on parts of Hickory Place and Connaught Drive as shown by Proposed No Stopping Restrictions as indicated in Attachment A, Plan TG135525 dated 14 August 2019 of the agenda staff report.

2. Revoke 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 the agenda staff report.

3. Approve that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

Mark Peters/Anne Galloway Carried

11. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund - Applications - University of Canterbury Athletics Club and Southern United Hockey Club

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00130 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved to:

1. Approve a grant of $1,000 from its 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund to the University of Canterbury Athletics Club towards the Junior Athletics programme.

2. Approve a grant of $2,000 from its 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund to the Southern United Hockey Club towards coach training and equipment.

Jimmy Chen/Debbie Mora Carried

12. New Zealand Community Boards' Executive Committee - Nominations for Zone 5 Representative

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00131 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part C

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolved:

1. To support a nomination of Alexandra Davids as the Zone 5 Representative on the New Zealand Community Boards’ Executive Committee.

2. That should an election be required, the exercising of a Board vote be completed by the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson on the Board’s behalf and that any such action taken, be reported back to the Board for record purposes.

Mike Mora/Catherine Chu Carried

Jimmy Chen left the meeting at 6.04 pm.

13. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - November 2019

Community Board Resolved HHRB/2019/00132 (Original Staff Recommendation accepted without change)

Part B

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board decided to:

1. Receive its Area Report for November 2019.

2. Receive and note the information contained in the staff memorandum regarding the Taggart Reserve – Community Planting Proposal.

3. Receive and note the information contained in the staff memorandum regarding the Picton Reserve – Basketball Court and Hoop Request.

4. Receive the information contained in the staff memorandum responding back to the Board on Platinum Drive – Proposed No Stopping Restrictions, and the Awatea Road Safety Improvements Project).

5. Receive the information contained in the staff memorandum on the proposed amendments to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

6. Approve the funding and decision-making criteria as set out in clause 7.6 of the staff report for applications made to the Board’s Youth Development Fund, Local Response Fund and Off the Ground Fund.

7. Approve the holding of a Joint Meeting of the Waimāero/Fendalton-Waimairi-Harewood Community Board Community Board and the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on Monday 16 December 2019 at 4.30pm in the Board Room, Fendalton Service Centre, corner Jeffreys and Clyde Roads, to consider the Proposed North West Speed Management Plan.

Catherine Chu/Anne Galloway Carried

14. Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Board members exchanged information on the following:

· Canterbury Track Cycling Event – Friday 15 November 2019

· Proposed Roydon Quarry – Hearings have started

· Parks maintenance – Longhurst/Knights Stream area

· Fire concerns – Port Hills/Westmorland residents

· Templeton Residents Association meeting – concerns around consultation timing for the proposed Templeton Cemetery relative to the Proposed Roydon Quarry hearings

· Branston Park – parking concerns

Meeting concluded at 6.17pm

CONFIRMED THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

Mike Mora

Chairperson

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

8. 310 Kennedys Bush Road - Proposed Road Names
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1056158
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the proposed road and right-of-way names arising from the subdivision at 310 Kennedys Bush 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 310 Kennedys Bush Road.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve the following

new road and rights-of-way names:

1. 310 Kennedys Bush Road (RMA/2018/2324):

a. Kokomea Street

b. Minsons Lane

c. Larnder Lane

3. Background

Introduction

3.1 Road naming requests have been submitted by David Ogilvie & Partners Ltd in association with the subdivision of 310 Kennedys Bush Road (RMA/2018/2324). 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 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 and are considered to be consistent with this policy except as outlined below.

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 has been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names which is summarised below along with the correspondence with the applicant.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

3.9 The decision 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.

Proposed Names

3.12 The proposed names are shown in Attachment A.

3.13 The proposed options to name the access lot are set out below:

Street Name A

Preferred name: Kokomea Street – the sunsets as seen from this subdivision can be amazing. Kokomea is Maori for “glow” – in this case the glow of the sunset. The word also has a pleasing sound to it. The local Rūnanga were consulted and no concerns were raised.

Alternative name: Taumata Street - translates to “the brow of a hill”. The local Rūnanga were consulted and no concerns were raised.

Lane Name B

Preferred name: Minsons Lane - the subdivision is bounded on two sides by Minsons Drain. These drains run into the Halswell River and then Lake Ellesmere.

Lane Name C

Preferred name: Larnder Lane – This subdivision is being developed by Andrew and Bridget Thomas. They have owned the property for 28 years. They have taken it from a gorse and broom filled paddock to what it is today with extensive native plantings. Bridget Thomas’s maiden name is Larnder.

She is one of four daughters of Prue and the late Dr Derek Larnder O.B.E. (1922-2009). Dr Larnder was a very well-known and respected dermatologist in Christchurch from 1958 to 1992. He did a lot of voluntary work in the community including launching Christchurch’s first free clinic for skin cancer checks in 1989.

The popularity and success of these clinics led to their extension throughout the South Island. His participation in professional associations included the President of the New Zealand Dermatological Society. He was the only doctor in Australasia to become an honorary overseas member of the British Association for Dermatologists, and was fellow of the American Academy of Dermatology. In 1989 he was awarded an O.B.E. for services to dermatology.

Alternative Lane Names

Ti Tree Lane – this is the Maori name for the cabbage tree and grows abundantly in the area. The local Rūnanga were consulted and no concerns were raised.

Weta Lane – In Maori, Weta means west. This reflects the western aspect of the property. The local Rūnanga were consulted and no concerns were raised.

Hoheria Lane - this is an abundant local native tree. The local Rūnanga were consulted and no concerns were raised.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	310 Kennedys Bush Road - Proposed Road Namings - Plan	36

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Katie Akacich - Senior 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

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

9. 57 Sutherlands Road - Proposed Road Names
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1298807
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Paul Lowe - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the proposed road names for the subdivision at 57 Sutherlands Road in Halswell.

Origin of Report

1.2 This report is staff generated arising from the naming requests received from the subdivision developer for the development at 57 Sutherlands Road.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve the following new road names:

1. 57 Sutherlands Road (RMA/2018/1992):

a. Tempering Drive

b. Forge Close

c. Bellows Close

3. Background

Introduction

3.1 Road naming requests have been submitted by Davie Lovell-Smith Ltd in association with the subdivision of 57 Sutherlands Road (RMA/2018/1992). A preferred name and alternative names have been put forward by the developer.

3.2 The recommended road 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 proposed names are considered sufficiently different to existing road names.

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

3.4 The recommended road names have also been checked against the Australia and New Zealand Standard AS/NZA 4819:2011 Rural and Urban Addressing. The names are considered to be consistent with the Standard unless otherwise stated below.

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

3.7 The naming request has been accompanied by an explanation of the background to the names, which is summarised below, along with the correspondence with the applicant.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

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

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

Proposed Names

3.11 The proposed names the subject of this application, are shown in Attachment A.

3.12 Road 1 as shown on the plan, is an extension of an existing road named Muirhill Street. It will connect Sutherlands Road to Kennedys Bush Road via Findlay Avenue.

3.13 The proposed options to name the roads are themed to reflect the nearby Halswell Quarry and smithing. The suggested names are based on the techniques and tools used at the Quarry, and are set out below.

Road 2

Preferred name: Tempering Drive

The art of heating metal to a specified temperature then cooling very slowly to specific temperatures. This technique was an everyday task used at the Quarry to keep the crowbars and rock drills sharp.

Road 3

Preferred name: Forge Close

The forge was used to heat all the metal for the smithy to work with.

Road 4

Preferred name: Bellows Close

The bellows pumped air into the forge to create the heat.

Alternative Names

Road 2

Kippers Drive – The name of one of the specialty tongs used. Tongs were used by the smithies to hold and handle the hot iron; many shapes and sizes were used.

Roads 3/4

Anvil Close – The heavy steel block used by the smithies to hammer and shape the hot metal.

Embers Place – The red hot coals that have been heated within the forge. The iron being worked is placed in the hot embers until it is at the correct heat to re-shape.

Bolster Place – A sharp iron chisel used for cutting the hot and cold steel.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	57 Sutherlands Road - Proposed Road Namings - Plan	40

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Leashelle Miller - Planning Technician

Sean Ward - Principal Advisor Resource Consents

Approved By

John Higgins - Head of Resource Consents

Carolyn Gallagher - Acting General Manager Consenting and Compliance

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

10. Halswell Road (near Parklea Avenue) - Access to Public Transport - Upgrades to Existing Bus Stops
Reference:	19/1211446
Presenter(s):	Brenda O’Donoghue, Passenger Transport Engineer

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board (the Community Board) to consider for approval the following:

1.1.1 Relocation of an existing bus stop from 286 Halswell Road to 278/280 Halswell Road, or to one of the other two potential locations presented in this report.

1.1.2 Installation of a bus passenger shelter beside the proposed bus stop, if relocated to 278/280 Halswell Road, or beside one of the other two relocation options presented in this report.

1.1.3 Applying of appropriate road marking at the existing unmarked bus stop that is located opposite 284/286 Halswell Road.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to a request for a bus passenger shelter to be installed at the bus stop that is currently located beside 286 Halswell Road. This bus stop is referred to as the ‘inbound’ bus stop throughout the rest of this report. The term ‘inbound’ in public transport refers to the direction of travel, generally towards a key activity centre. Travel away from the key activity centre is referred to as ‘outbound’. Approval has been sought from the adjacent utility owner, the Council’s Three Waters and Waste Unit, to install a bus passenger shelter at this location. Due to the extent and significance of the underground utilities that are present, approval by the Three Waters and Waste Unit was not given.

2.2 Subsequently, staff investigated alternative locations for the bus stop to be relocated to which will allow a bus passenger shelter to be installed beside it. Three alternative options were advanced to consultation.

2.3 The Community Board has the delegated authority to approve the installation of the bus stop parking restrictions and the bus passenger shelter relevant to this report. However as the proposed bus stop changes are located on the state highway network, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZ Transport Agency) retains the delegated authority to approve ‘no stopping’ restrictions.

2.4 It is important to note that when the Community Board is making its decision on the bus stop relocation from 286 Halswell Road, it is to enable the Council to install a bus passenger shelter beside it.

2.5 As part of the bus stop review, staff identified inclusive access deficiencies with the bus stop on the opposite side of the road, the ‘outbound’ bus stop. Furthermore, the outbound bus stop is unmarked. Staff are planning to rectify these deficiencies through the proposals and actions of this report.

2.6 This bus stop project coincides with a supporting pedestrian safety project planned by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA). The NZTA is planning to install a pedestrian crossing refuge by 282/284 Halswell Road. The Council’s bus stop improvement project and the NZTA’s pedestrian safety project have significant cross benefits that support a connected and accessible network for the local community.

3. Staff Recommendations

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve Option 1 (preferred option):

1. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

2. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A2, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

3. The installation of a bus passenger shelter beside 278 Halswell Road, as identified as ‘bus stop shelter’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

or should the Community Board decline to approve Option 1:

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve Option 2:

4. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

5. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A2, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

6. The installation of a bus passenger shelter beside 276 Halswell Road, as identified as ‘bus stop shelter’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report.

or should the Community Board decline to approve Option 1 and Option 2:

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve Option 3:

7. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment C of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

8. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Halswell Road referred to as A2, and as identified as ‘bus stop box’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment C of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

9. The installation of a bus passenger shelter beside 274 Halswell Road, as identified as ‘bus stop shelter’ in Plan TG135610 dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment C of the agenda staff report.

10. 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 the agenda staff report, are revoked.

11. 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 in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 278/280 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 278 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road (preferred option, refer to Attachment A);

· Option 2 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 276 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 276 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road (refer to Attachment B);

· Option 3 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 274 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 274 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road (refer to Attachment C); and

· Option 4 – Do minimum, no change to the existing inbound bus stop, no bus passenger shelter installed and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road.

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 1 – preferred option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Provision of a bus passenger shelter:

· Protection from the weather,

· Seating provided within the shelter, and

· Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport.

· There is street lighting located in close proximity, which can improve the real and perceived personal safety of people waiting for a bus, it also make it easier for bus drivers to spot the waiting passenger.

· Privacy concerns for the residents of 278 Halswell Road are mitigated by presence of mature shrubbery and a fence along the property boundary.

· Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility as well as bus operational efficiency.

· Both bus stops are positioned at a technically preferred location relative to the new pedestrian crossing refuge.

· The preferred location of the inbound bus stop keeps it at a convenient location for passengers accessing the dental/medical centre at 284 Halswell Road. It will also be in close proximity to both Parklea Avenue and the pedestrian walkway to Ensign Street. All of which enable good connectivity to public transport and access to opportunities.

· An accessible kerb height platform will be installed at the outbound bus stop, which is an important step in providing an inclusive public transport network.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

· Relocating the inbound bus stop to 278/280 Halswell Road was not the preferred location during consultation. However, information concerning the new pedestrian crossing refuge was not included in the consultation material. Knowledge of the pedestrian crossing refuge may have influenced feedback.

· Reallocation of on-street parking. However, the reallocation is the same number as Option 2 and Option 3.

· Relocating the existing bus stop will leave a length of about 4.8 metres between the driveways to 286 and 288 Halswell Road. With vehicles allowed to be parked at a minimum distance from a vehicle entrance, this leaves a legal space of about 2.8 metres for a vehicle to park. Due to the limited amount of space for vehicles to legally park, staff are recommending to the NZTA that this section of the existing bus stop be replaced with ‘no stopping’ restrictions. Note that the NZTA have the delegated authority to approve ‘no stopping’ restrictions on the state highway network.

5. Context/Background

Overview of the existing bus stop

5.1 The existing bus stops on Halswell Road near Parklea Avenue are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Existing bus stops on Halswell Road near Parklea Avenue

5.2 The bus stops are serviced by the number 100 and the Orange bus lines. The Orange bus line is one of Christchurch’s key high frequency bus services. The Orange line connects Halswell to Parklands via the Central City and typically operates to a 15 minute frequency. The number 100 is suburban link service, connecting Halswell to Richmond via Riccarton and typically operates to a 30 minute frequency.

5.3 Recent passenger boarding numbers indicate about 45 people use the inbound bus stop beside 286 Halswell Road to board a bus per day. Bus patronage data in Christchurch is collected when people board a bus, not when the person leaves the bus. It can be logically assumed for largely single land-use areas, such as the predominantly residential area that surrounds the bus stops of interest, that about the same number of people who board a bus at the inbound bus stop, return to the same area by using the outbound bus stop. Thereby, it can be assumed that about 45 people use the outbound bus stop to return home each day.

5.4 There have been a number of requests from the community for a bus passenger shelter to be installed at the inbound bus stop. Due to the number of people who use the bus stop and the community interest, it is a key location that staff have identified as requiring a shelter to be installed.

5.5 Initial investigations by staff concluded a shelter cannot be installed beside the existing bus stop. This is due to the extent and significance of underground utilities that are present, as such the Council’s Three Waters and Waste Unit have declined the Traffic Operations Team’s request for a shelter to be installed. Under the Water Supply, Wastewater and Stormwater Bylaw, the Three Waters and Waste Unit are permitted to do so. Traffic Operations staff accept the reasoning for the request being declined and view this as an opportunity to provide a better bus stop environment.

5.6 Following the consultation stage of the project, staff were made aware that the NZTA are planning to install at pedestrian crossing refuge in close proximity to the existing bus stops. Both projects are complementary to each other. Provision of a safer place for pedestrians to cross Halswell Road will improve pedestrian safety for people using the bus stops. Improving the location of the bus stops will focus pedestrian crossings to a particular and safer location.

Strategic Alignment

5.7 Transport is the city’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Making public transport more efficient, reliable, inclusive and attractive to use are important measures help achieve the Council’s greenhouse gas emissions targets for Christchurch.

5.8 All recommendations in this report, except for “Option 4 – Do minimum” supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.8.1 Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

· Level of Service: 10.4.4.0 Improve user satisfaction of public transport facilities - =7.2

5.9 The Council’s strategic framework is a key consideration in guiding the recommendations in this report. The provision of bus stops allows our communities access to public transport which in turn allows the Council to achieve:

· Strong communities,

· Liveable city,

· Healthy environment, and

· Prosperous economy.

5.10 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved opportunities to access and use public transport.

5.11 All recommendations in this report align with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy (2019), which provides a framework to address parking related issues and the management of competing demands for public space within the cities suburban areas. As indicated in Table 1, policy one of the Suburban Parking Policy prioritises the provision of bus stops ahead of residential, short stay and commuter parking.

Priority	Commercial Areas	Residential Areas	Other Areas
1^st	Safety	Safety	Safety
2^nd	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity
3^rd	Mobility parking	Mobility parking	Mobility parking
4^th	Bus stops/cycle parks/bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/micromobility (e.g. scooters)	Bus stops	Bus stops /cycle parks/ bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/micromobility (e.g. scooters)
5^th	Taxi ranks (special passenger vehicle stands)	Residents parking	Short stay parking
6^th	Loading zones	Cycle parks/ bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micromobility (e.g. scooters)	Residents parking
7^th	Short stay parking	Short stay parking	Commuter parking
8^th	Residents parking	Commuter parking
9^th	Commuter parking

Table 1: Policy 1, Suburban Parking Policy, prioritisation of road space

Decision Making Authority

5.12 The NZTA has delegated parking restrictions on State Highways within the bounds of Christchurch City, to the Christchurch City Council. However, the NZTA retain the delegation to approve ‘no stopping’ restrictions on the State Highways, including within Christchurch City.

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

5.14 As set out in the Council’s Register of Delegations, the Community Boards also have the delegated authority for bus passenger shelter resolutions.

5.15 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

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

5.17 The level of significance was determined by consideration of the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

5.18 The requirements for the bus passenger shelter consultation are set out in section 339 of the Local Government Act:

5.18.1 The section 339 Local Government Act requirements for engagement are “The council shall give notice in writing of its proposal to erect any shelter under this section to the occupier and, if he is not also the owner, to the owner of any land the frontage of which is likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter”.

5.19 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflects the significance and engagement assessment.

6. Options Analysis

Options Considered

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

· Option 4 –Do minimum, no change to the existing inbound bus stop, no bus passenger shelter installed and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road.

6.2 A summary of the bus stop location options considered, including those that were not advanced to consultation is included in Attachment D.

Options Descriptions

6.3 Option 1 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 278/280 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 278 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road. The Option 1 bus stop changes are shown in Figure 2 and in accordance with Attachment A.

Figure 2: Option 1 bus stop improvement plan

6.3.1 Option Advantages

· Provision of a bus passenger shelter:

o Protection from the weather,

o Seating provided within the shelter, and

o Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport.

· Privacy concerns for the residents of 278 Halswell Road are mitigated by the presence of mature shrubbery and a fence along the property boundary.

· Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility as well as bus operational efficiency.

· Both bus stops are positioned at a technically preferred location relative to the new pedestrian crossing refuge.

· An accessible kerb height platform will be installed at the outbound bus stop, which is an important step in providing an inclusive public transport network.

6.3.2 Option Disadvantages

· Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

· Reallocation of on-street parking. However, the reallocation is the same number as Option 2 and Option 3.

· Relocating the existing inbound bus stop will leave a length of about 4.8 metres between the driveways to 286 and 288 Halswell Road. With vehicles allowed to be parked at a minimum distance from a vehicle entrance, this leaves a legal space of about 2.8 metres for a vehicle to park. Due to the limited amount of space for vehicles to legally park, staff are recommending to NZTA that this section of the existing bus stop be replaced with ‘no stopping’ restrictions. Note that the NZTA have the delegated authority to approve ‘no stopping’ restrictions on the state highway network.

6.4 Option 2 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 276 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 276 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road. The Option 2 bus stop changes are shown in Figure 3 and in accordance with Attachment B.

Figure 3: Option 2 bus stop improvement plan

6.4.1 Option Advantages: Option 2 advantages are largely similar to the advantages of Option 1.

6.4.2 Option Disadvantages: Apart from the following points, Option 2 disadvantages are largely similar to the disadvantages of Option 1:

· The inbound bus stop is located further away from the pedestrian crossing and Parklea Avenue.

· The inbound bus stop is located further away from the Halswell Dental Centre, which is a concern raised by the centre as part of their submission.

· There is less privacy screening along the property boundary of 276 Halswell Road, which has a low height wall with intermittent shrubbery.

6.5 Option 3 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 274 Halswell Road, install a bus passenger shelter beside 274 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road. The Option 3 bus stop changes are shown in Figure 4 and in accordance with Attachment C.

Figure 4: Option 3 bus stop improvement plan

6.5.1 Option Advantages: Apart from the following points, Option 3 advantages are largely similar to the advantages of Option 1:

· Privacy concerns for the residents of 274 Halswell Road are mitigated by the presence of full height fence along the property boundary.

· Consultation feedback indicates Option 3 of this report was the preferred bus stop relocation option. However, information concerning the new pedestrian crossing refuge was not included in the consultation material. Knowledge of the pedestrian crossing refuge may have influenced feedback.

6.5.2 Option Disadvantages: Option 3 disadvantages are largely similar to the disadvantages of Option 1 and Option 2.

6.6 Option Four – Do minimum, no change to the existing inbound bus stop, no bus passenger shelter installed and mark the existing outbound bus stop opposite 284/286 Halswell Road.

6.6.1 Option Advantages

· The ‘Do minimum’ option has the redeeming quality that accessibility improvements to the boarding platform will be carried out to the outbound bus stop irrespectively, as it does not require approval by the Community Board. However, staff propose that the existing bus stop is marked, which does require Community Board approval. Otherwise, there are no clear advantages to leaving the existing inbound bus stop beside 286 Halswell Road as it does not improve the waiting experience for people traveling by public transport and does not complement the pedestrian safety work undertaken by the NZTA.

6.6.2 Option Disadvantages

· Provision of a shelter at the inbound bus stop is a priority for staff and the local people who use this bus stop. Not relocating the inbound bus stop prevents a shelter from being installed, thereby being inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies and the requests by the people who use this bus stop.

Analysis Criteria

6.7 All new bus stops are planned and implemented in accordance with the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) and the Construction Standard Specifications (2018). A copy of the bus stop location assessment, including those that were not advanced to consultation, is provided in Attachment D. This assessment has been re-evaluated to include the provision of the new pedestrian crossing refuge.

6.8 Staff assess the proposed shelter locations based on the statutory requirement as set out in section 339 of the Local Government Act: “The council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public-transport passengers or small passenger service vehicle passengers, provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road”

6.9 Staff also undertake geometric, road safety and bus stop best practice design assessments for each proposed shelter location. Examples of this include:

· The shelter will not restrict nearby driveway or intersection sightlines.

· The shelter can be located at an appropriate location relative to the bus stop, which makes it a logical place for passengers to wait within the shelter.

· That a 1.5 metre (minimum) continuous accessible path of travel for pedestrian movement is maintained in front of the shelter.

· Does not adversely impact the underground utilities.

· Determine if other existing bus stop infrastructure needs to be relocated to ensure the location is accessible to the people who use the bus stop as well as the people who walk past the bus stop.

· Determine if other accessibility and operational improvements are needed to be made to optimise the usability of the bus stop, for example extending the footpath to the kerb to ensure there is a hardstand for customers boarding or exiting the bus, or marking the bus stop to the recommended bus stop length.

Options Considerations

6.10 Options 1 to 3 of this report is consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028).

6.11 Option 4 in this report is not fully consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028):

6.11.1 Inconsistency – The “Do minimum” option does not support improved user satisfaction of public transport facilities.

6.11.2 Reasons for inconsistency – Passengers at a busy bus stop will not be provided with a shelter when waiting for a bus in the existing inbound bus stop location.

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 Affected property owners and residents were sent letters on 5 September 2019. The consultation was solely focused on the relocation of the inbound bus stop currently located beside 286 Halswell Road. There was no consultation concerning the marking of the existing outbound bus stop, as the location is not changing and there are not adjacent properties with access onto Halswell Road in this section.

7.2 As a consequence of consultation with the NZTA, staff became aware of the pedestrian crossing refuge that will be installed. Christchurch City Council staff and the NZTA staff are working collaboratively to ensure where the projects overlap, that the infrastructure is delivered efficiently to save on cost, time and impact to the surrounding residents and operation of the road network.

7.3 The consultation catchment area for the relocation of the inbound bus stop is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Inbound bus stop relocation, consultation catchment area

7.4 During the consultation, staff received 11 submissions from people who live near or own properties near the proposed bus stop.

7.5 Feedback was received from key stakeholders, Environment Canterbury, Go Bus Transport (operator of the Orbiter bus line), Red Bus Transport (operator of the 100 bus line) and the NZTA. The feedback from stakeholder organisations has been included separately in Section 7.9 to 7.12.

7.6 As a consequence of discussions with the NZTA, staff became aware of the pedestrian crossing refuge that will soon be installed. As this was established after the consultation letters were issued, the consultation material did not refer to the pedestrian crossing refuge. Note that knowledge of the pedestrian crossing refuge prior to consultation would not have changed the options advanced to consultation. However, knowledge of the pedestrian crossing refuge may have influenced the preferred option selected by the submitters.

7.7 Of the residents/property owners who responded to the proposal, their bus stop location preference is indicated in Table 2.

278/280 Halswell Rd (Option 1 of this report)	276 Halswell Rd (Option 2 of this report)	274 Halswell Rd (Option 3 of this report)	Object to all
3	0	7	1

Table 2: Consultation feedback to relocate existing bus stop beside 286 Halswell Road

7.8 The consultation feedback indicates that the preferred bus stop relocation by those who submitted is to 274 Halswell Road. However, as previously noted, information concerning the new pedestrian crossing refuge was not included in the consultation material. Knowledge of the pedestrian crossing refuge may have influenced the preferred option. Feedback provided by submitters is provided in Attachment E.

Consultation Feedback – Stakeholder Organisations

7.9 Christchurch City Council provides bus stops to support the Greater Christchurch public transport services provided by Environment Canterbury. Consequently, Environment Canterbury has also been consulted on for all bus stop options proposed.

7.10 The project was discussed with staff from the NZTA, which was when staff became aware of the pedestrian crossing refuge that will soon be installed by the NZTA. Christchurch City Council staff and the NZTA staff are working collaboratively to ensure where the projects overlap, that the infrastructure is delivered efficiently to save on cost, time and minimise the impact to the surrounding residents and operation of the road network. As the bus stops are located on the State Highway network, the NZTA approves the ‘no stopping’ restrictions associated with this project.

7.11 Go Bus is the operator of the Orbiter bus line and Red Bus is the operator of the 100 bus line. Their bus drivers have to stop at the bus stops on request, and ensure where practicable, passengers can safely and accessibly get on and off the bus.

7.12 Feedback received from Environment Canterbury, Go Bus and Red Bus outlined their bus stop location preferences as being:

Environment Canterbury	Go Bus	Red Bus
278/280 Halswell Road (Option 1)	276 Halswell Road (Option 2)	278/280 Halswell Road (Option 1)

Table 3: Key stakeholder organisations, submission summary

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, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework.

9. Risks

9.1 Should the Community Board proceed with the ‘Do minimum’ option, the inbound bus stop will remain in its current location where a bus passenger shelter cannot be installed.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

10.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately two months of the Community Board’s approval.

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

11. 166 Waimairi Road - Proposed Bus Passenger Shelter Installation and Bus Stop Markings
Reference:	19/1188134
Presenter(s):	Serena Chia, Graduate Transport Engineer Brenda O’Donoghue, Passenger Transport Engineer

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider for approval the installation of a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop located within the governance area of the Community Board.

1.2 The Board is also requested to consider, for approval, the installation of bus stop markings at the existing bus stop where the bus passenger shelter is proposed.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to an issue raised by the Disabled Persons Assembly concerning the accessibility of the existing unmarked bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road (Avonhead Playcentre). As part of this report, staff propose to mark the bus stop and undertake other bus stop upgrades to improve accessibility for people using the bus stop.

2.2 Furthermore, staff propose to install a bus passenger shelter at the bus stop. The bus stop locations chosen by staff for shelters to be installed are typically the bus stops where the average weekday passenger boardings meet a demand threshold of more than 20 people boarding a bus per weekday. This means staff are targeting the bus stops that are most used by people accessing public transport. The average weekday passenger boardings at the bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road has been increasing to a level where the passenger demand is consistent with staff criteria for shelter installations.

2.3 Staff have received no objections from the owner or hirers of the adjacent property to the proposed bus passenger shelter associated with this report.

2.4 The relevant Community Board for the area that the proposed shelter is to be located have the delegated authority to approve the installation of the shelter.

3. Staff Recommendations

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Approve the installation of a bus passenger shelter at 166 Waimairi Road in accordance with Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

2. Approve the following bus stop parking restrictions at an existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road in accordance with Attachment A of the agenda staff report:

a. 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 resolutions 2b. and 2c. below, are revoked.

b. Under Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking and stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Waimairi Road referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines identified as ‘no stopping’ in Plan TG135615, dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

c. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Waimairi Road referred to as A1 and identified as ‘bus stop’ in Plan TG135615, dated 14 November 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

d. That the above resolutions take effect when the traffic control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda 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 in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 – Install a bus passenger shelter and mark the existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road (preferred option, refer to Attachment A)

· Option 2 – Do nothing, no shelter or markings are installed.

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Protection from the weather,

· Seating provided within the shelter,

· Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport,

· Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop, and

· Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

· Reallocation of on-street parking. Note that the existing bus stop is designated by a sign only, meaning that parking within six metres either side of the bus stop sign is not permitted, unless the vehicle is a bus. The total on-street parking reallocation is the difference in length between the unmarked bus stop and the proposed marked buss top, where a vehicle could legally park.

5. Context/Background

5.1 The existing bus stop is located beside 166 Waimairi Road, which is the Avonhead Playcentre. The bus stop is unmarked, with the bus stop sign attached to an existing post on the berm as shown in Figure 1. As part of the bus stop upgrade, a passenger waiting hard stand area will be installed over the berm to provide an accessible area for people using this bus stop and when getting on and off the bus.

Figure 1: Existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road

5.2 A bus passenger shelter is proposed for the bus stop presented in this report. Due to the Orbiter route change that occurred in January 2019, the weekday passenger boardings (avg. pax/weekday) for this bus stop have increased to about 18 passenger boardings per weekday. This is close to meeting the demand threshold of more than 20 daily passenger boardings per weekday to warrant a bus passenger shelter.

5.3 A proposed bus passenger shelter beside 191 Waimairi Road was initially considered by staff. However, it has been put on hold due to another upcoming project that might impact the location of the bus stop beside 191 Waimairi Road.

5.4 The location of the bus stop relevant to this report and hence the proposed bus stop line markings and shelter relative to the surrounding locality is indicated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Bus stop by 166 Waimairi Road

5.5 Council staff propose to install a shelter at the location outlined in the attached bus passenger shelter plan (refer to Attachment A).

5.6 Environment Canterbury (ECan) is responsible for providing public transport services. The Christchurch City Council is responsible for providing public transport infrastructure. The installation of the shelter is supported by ECan.

5.7 Under Section 339 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council may erect on the footpath of any road, a shelter for use by intending public transport passengers or small passenger service vehicle passengers provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road. The Council is required to give notice in writing to the occupier and owner of property likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter, and shall not proceed with the erection of the shelter until after the expiration of the time for objecting against the proposal or, in the event of an objection, until after the objection has been determined.

5.8 Staff confirm the shelter will not prevent vehicular or pedestrian access to any land having a frontage to the road.

5.9 Where applicable and deemed necessary by staff, the report includes the installation of bus stop markings, at the bus stop where a bus passenger shelter is proposed. Un-marked bus stops do not adhere to the recommended bus stop length as indicated in the Christchurch City Council’s Construction Standard Specifications.

5.10 Consultation has been carried out with the individuals who hire the building located at 166 Waimairi Road (Avonhead Playcentre). The consultation period for the proposed bus stop line markings and shelter occurred from Wednesday 25 September 2019 to Wednesday 9 October 2019. Only a shelter where the owner or occupier of the adjacent property has provided feedback indicating no objection or where there was no response received to the consultation is included within this report. Further information about the bus passenger shelter consultation can be found in Section 7.

Strategic Alignment

5.11 All recommendations in this report, except for “Option 2 – Do nothing” supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.11.1 Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

· Level of Service: 10.4.4 Improve user satisfaction of public transport facilities. - >=7.3

5.12 The Council’s strategic framework is a key consideration in guiding the recommendations in this report. The recommendations in this report help achieve the community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved satisfaction of public transport facilities for people who choose to undertake their commute by public transport.

5.13 Transport is the city’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Making public transport more efficient, reliable, inclusive and attractive to use are important measures help achieve the Council’s greenhouse gas emissions targets for Christchurch.

Decision Making Authority

5.14 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 bus passenger shelters.

5.15 Where no objection to the shelter has been presented by the owner or occupier of an affected property, staff present a decision making report directly to the relevant Community Board.

5.16 Where an objection has been presented by the owner or hirer of an affected property, staff present a decision-making report to a hearings panel, who will then make recommendations to the Community Board. The Community Board will then determine the outcome of the objections in accordance with section 339 of the Local Government Act.

5.17 Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the Council with the authority to install stopping and parking restrictions by resolution. The list of delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution of stopping and parking restrictions. Traffic control devices must comply with the Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement

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

5.19 The level of significance was determined by consideration of the criteria set out in the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and the requirements as set out in section 339 of the Local Government Act:

5.19.1 The section 339 Local Government Act requirements for engagement are “The council shall give notice in writing of its proposal to erect any shelter under this section to the occupier and, if he is not also the owner, to the owner of any land the frontage of which is likely to be injuriously affected by the erection of the shelter”.

5.20 The community engagement and consultation outlined in this report reflects the significance and engagement assessment.

6. Options Analysis

Options Considered

6.1 The following options were considered and are presented for consideration in this report:

· Option 1 – Install a bus passenger shelter and mark the existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road (preferred option, refer to Attachment A)

· Option 2 – Do nothing, no shelter or markings are installed.

Options Descriptions

6.2 Preferred Option: Option 1 – Install a bus passenger shelter and mark the existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road.

6.2.1 Option Description: Install a bus passenger shelter at an existing bus stop beside 166 Waimairi Road and mark the bus stop to adhere to the recommended bus stop length as indicated in the Christchurch City Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (2018).

6.2.2 The proposed bus passenger shelter to be installed at the bus stop will be a council shelter type. The image below is an example of what the shelter is likely to look like.

Figure 3: Example of shelter type

6.2.3 Option Advantages

· Protection from the weather,

· Seating provided within the shelter,

· Increase the visibility and legibility of public transport,

· Provision of the recommended bus stop length has the potential to improve the operational performance of the bus line(s) that use the bus stop, and

· Adherence to the recommended bus stop length improves passenger accessibility as buses have sufficient space to straighten and stop parallel to the kerb.

6.2.4 Option Disadvantages

· Increase in the number of bus passenger shelters to be maintained by the Council.

6.3 Option 2 - Do nothing, no shelter or markings are installed.

6.3.1 Option Description: No passenger shelter is installed at the location identified in section 3 of this report and existing bus stop remains unmarked.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Option 2 has no clear advantages.

· No increase in operational and maintenance costs.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· As vehicles are legally permitted to park up to six metres from the bus stop sign, this means the space provided for buses cannot be considered as a given for buses to come to a halt.

· It is inconsistent with the Council's Plans and Policies.

Analysis Criteria

6.4 Staff assess each site based on the statutory requirement as set out in section 339 of the Local Government Act: “The council may erect on the footpath of any road a shelter for use by intending public-transport passengers or small passenger service vehicle passengers, provided that no such shelter may be erected so as to unreasonably prevent access to any land having a frontage to the road”

6.5 All new bus stops are planned and implemented in accordance with the Christchurch City Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) and the Christchurch City Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (2018).

6.6 Staff undertake geometric, road safety and bus stop best practice design assessments for each proposed shelter location. Examples of this include:

· The shelter will not restrict nearby driveway or intersection sightlines.

· The shelter can be located at an appropriate location relative to the bus stop, which makes it a logical place for passengers to wait within the shelter.

· That a 1.5 metre (minimum) continuous accessible path of travel for pedestrian movement is maintained in front of the shelter.

· Does not adversely impact the underground utilities.

· Determine if other existing bus stop infrastructure needs to be relocated to ensure the location is accessible to the people who use the bus stop as well as the people who walk past the bus stop.

Options Considerations

6.7 Option 1 is consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028).

6.8 Option 2, the “Do Nothing” option is inconsistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028):

6.8.1 Inconsistency – The “Do Nothing” option does not support improved user satisfaction of public transport facilities and the accessibility of the bus stop for customers.

6.8.2 Reason for inconsistency – Leaving the bus stop unmarked is inconsistent with the Council’s Construction Standard Specifications (2018). Unmarked bus stops can negatively impact passenger accessibility and operational efficiency. Not providing shelter does not improve the passenger waiting experience.

6.9 Amendment necessary – Install a bus passenger shelter and bus stop line markings as per Option 1 of this report.

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 The property owners and occupiers of 166 Waimairi Road are specifically affected by this proposal due to the proximity of the property to the proposed shelter and bus stop parking restrictions at the existing bus stop. The consultation period occurred from Wednesday 25 September 2019 to Wednesday 9 October 2019. The consultation notice and a feedback form were sent to the individuals who hire the facility, requesting their feedback to the proposed bus passenger shelter and markings.

7.2 No submissions have been received at the time of preparing this report.

7.3 The property at 166 Waimairi Road is owned by Christchurch City Council. Staff discussed the bus stop project with the Citizen and Community Group team, who manage this location and they have not indicated any objection to the project.

8. Legal Implications

8.1 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, and the recommendations are consistent with the policy and legislative framework outlined in the Decision Making Authority section of this report.

9. Risks

9.1 Should the Community Board proceed with the ‘Do Nothing’ option, no shelter will be installed and the bus stop will remain unmarked. This will not improve the level of service for passengers waiting for a bus or some of the inclusive access issues raised by the Disabled Persons Assembly. This may not improve the passenger waiting experience and accessibility of the bus stop.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Approval is required by Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

10.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented within approximately two months of the Community Board’s approval.

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

12. Springs Road (near Boston Avenue) - Access to Public Transport - Relocation of Existing Bus Stop
Reference:	19/1119616
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 Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider for approval, the relocation of an existing bus stop beside 182 Springs Road in Hornby.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to a request from a customer who wanted the existing bus stop to be relocated away from their property driveway. The existing location of the bus stop, conflicting with the driveway, brings risk to people waiting at the bus stop when vehicles are using the driveway.

2.2 The proposed relocation recommendations in this report provide for the safer usage of people using this bus stop.

3. Staff Recommendations

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve Option 1:

Marked bus stop beside 182 Springs Road referred to as ‘A1’ in Attachment A of the agenda staff report:

1. That any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking and stopping described in this report, are revoked.

2. Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Springs Road referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘No Stopping’ on Plan TG135609 dated 25 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

3. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Springs Road referred to as A1, identified as ‘Bus Stop’ on Plan TG135609 dated 25 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

4. Revoke the existing bus stop on Springs Road commencing at a point 60 metres north east of its intersection with Boston Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

5. That the above resolutions take effect when the parking and stopping devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report, are in place.

Marked bus stop beside 180 Springs Road, referred to as ‘A2’ in Attachment B of the agenda staff report:

6. That any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking and stopping described in the agenda staff report, are revoked.

7. Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Springs Road referred to as A2 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘No Stopping’ on Plan TG135609 dated 25 October 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report.

8. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Springs Road referred to as A2, identified as ‘Bus Stop’ on Plan TG135609 dated 25 October 2019 in Attachment B of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

9. Revoke the existing bus stop on Springs Road commencing at a point 60 metres north east of its intersection with Boston Avenue and extending in a north easterly direction for a distance of 15 metres.

10. That the above resolutions take effect when the parking and stopping devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda 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 in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 – Relocate existing bus stop to 182-184 Springs Road, six metres in a south west direction.

· Option 2 – Relocate existing bus stop to 180-182 Springs Road, nine metres in a north east direction.

· Option 3 –Do nothing – no change to the existing bus stop.

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option, Option 1)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· The bus stop is not located across the property driveway, reducing the risk of conflict between people waiting at bus stop and vehicles assessing the driveway.

· The existing bus stop is undersize. As part of the relocation, the length of the bus stop will be increased to meet the minimum bus stop length, inclusive of the no parking zones in the approach and departure zones for the bus stop.

4.3.2 The disadvantage of this option include:

· Reallocation of two on-street parking spaces. There is sufficient on-street parking capacity in the general area for other motorists to continue to park on-street.

5. Context/Background

Overview of existing bus stops

5.1 The existing bus stop is located beside 182 Springs Road as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Existing bus stop beside 182 Springs Road

5.2 The bus stop is used to pick-up and drop-off customers, and is not used as a timing point.

5.3 The bus stop is serviced by the number 80 bus line. The 80 bus line operates to a 10 to 20 minutes scheduled frequency on weekdays and 30 minutes during weekends.

5.4 Recent passenger boarding numbers indicate about 25 passengers use the bus stop to board a bus per weekday. As the existing bus stop does not have a bus seat for customers to wait, this high usage bus stop would mean more people standing near and on the driveway when waiting at the bus stop, hence increasing the risk of conflict between people and vehicles assessing the driveway.

5.5 Staff acknowledge that the existing passenger waiting facility at this bus stop is insufficient. With the average passenger boarding number of 25 per day, it is high enough to warrant the install of a bus passenger shelter. Once the relocation of the existing bus stop is approved, staff will proceed with consultation for the install of a bus passenger shelter with adjacent property owners and occupiers.

Strategic Alignment

5.6 All recommendations in this report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.6.1 Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

· Level of Service: 10.4.1.0 More people are choosing to travel by bus - =+0% (13,467,570 pax)

5.7 The Council’s strategic framework is a key consideration in guiding the recommendations in this report. The provision of bus stops allows our communities access to public transport which in turn allows the Council to achieve:

· Strong communities

· Liveable city

· Healthy environment, and

· Prosperous economy

5.8 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved opportunities to access and use public transport.

5.9 All recommendations in this report align with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy (2019), which provides a framework to address parking related issues and the management of competing demands for public space within the cities suburban areas. As indicated in Table 1, policy one of the Suburban Parking Policy prioritises the provision of bus stops ahead of residential, short stay and commuter parking.

Priority	Commercial Areas	Residential Areas	Other Areas
1^st	Safety	Safety	Safety
2^nd	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity
3^rd	Mobility parking	Mobility parking	Mobility parking
4^th	Bus stops/cycle parks/bike corrals/shared parking (bike share or car share)/micro mobility (e.g. scooters)	Bus stops	Bus stops/cycle parks/ bike corrals/shared parking (bike share or car share)/micromobility (e.g. scooters)
5^th	Taxi ranks (special passenger vehicle stands)	Residents parking	Short stay parking
6^th	Loading zones	Cycle parks/bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micromobility (e.g. scooters)	Residents parking
7^th	Short stay parking	Short stay parking	Commuter parking
8^th	Residents parking	Commuter parking
9^th	Commuter parking

Table 1: Policy 1, Suburban Parking Policy, prioritisation of road space

Decision Making Authority

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

5.11 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.

5.12 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

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

5.14 The level of significance was determined by assessing the number of properties affected by the proposed options.

6. Options Analysis

Options Considered

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

· Option 1 – Relocate existing bus stop to 182-184 Springs Road, six metres in the south west direction.

· Option 2 – Relocate existing bus stop to 180-182 Springs Road, nine metres in the north east direction.

· Option 3 – Do nothing - no change to the existing bus stop.

Options Descriptions

6.2 Option One - Relocate the existing bus stop to 182-184 Springs Road, six metres in a south west direction.

6.2.1 Option Description: Relocate the existing bus stop, as shown as Option 1 in Figure 2 below and in accordance with Attachment A.

Figure 2: Option 1 (preferred) and Option 2, Springs Road bus stop relocation

6.2.2 Option Advantages

· The bus stop is not located across the property driveway, reducing the risk of conflict between people waiting at bus stop and vehicles assessing the driveway.

· The existing bus stop is undersized. As part of the relocation, the length of the bus stop will be increased to meet the minimum bus stop length, inclusive of the no parking zones in the approach and departure zones for the bus stop.

6.2.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reallocation of two on-street parking spaces. There is sufficient on-street parking capacity in the general area for other motorists to continue to park on-street.

6.3 Option Two – Relocate existing bus stop to 180-182 Springs Road, nine metres in a north east direction.

6.3.1 Option Description: This option was proposed to provide an alternative to the affected property owners and occupants as shown as Option 2 in Figure 2 above and in accordance with Attachment B.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Even though the bus stop is still located over the driveway, the front section of the bus stop does not coincide with the property driveway. This puts people away from the driveway as they wait for the bus to arrive, reducing the risk of conflict with vehicles assessing the driveway.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· Reallocation of two on-street parking spaces. There are sufficient on-street parking capacity in the general area for other motorists to continue to park on-street.

6.4 Option Three - Do nothing - no change to the existing bus stops

6.4.1 Option Advantages

· Does not reallocate on-street parking.

6.4.2 Option Disadvantages

· As the existing bus stop is located over the property driveway, the risk of conflict between people waiting at the bus stop and vehicles assessing the driveway may continue.

· The existing bus stop is under dimension. Without the no stopping restriction lines, buses will have difficulty making a stop parallel to the bus stop box when on-street parking is present.

Analysis Criteria

6.5 All new bus stops are planned and implemented in accordance with the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) and the Construction Standard Specifications (2018).

Options Considerations

6.6 Options 1 and 2 presented in this report are consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028).

6.7 However, Option 3 (Do Nothing) is not fully consistent with the Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028), Level of Service: 10.4.1.0 More people are choosing to travel by bus - =+0% (13,467,570 pax). The existing bus stop beside 182 Springs Road does not meet the Council’s Construction Standard Specification (CSS) bus stop dimension. Both the relocation options in this report will meet the specifications.

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 Letters were sent to the affected property owners and occupants that includes the relocation options.

7.2 Feedback was received from one resident indicating Option 1 as the preferred option.

7.3 At the time of preparing this report, no negative feedback or enquiries concerning the information provided in the letter, has been received by staff.

8. Legal Implications

9. Risks

9.1 Should the Community Board approve the ‘Do Nothing’ option, the bus stop will be located across the property driveway, which increases the risk of conflict between people waiting at the bus stop and vehicles assessing the driveway.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

10.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately two months after the Community Board’s approval.

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

13. Oakridge Street (near Nicholls Road) - Markings and Relocation of Existing Bus Stops
Reference:	19/1119808
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 Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider for approval the markings and relocation of existing bus stops beside 1B Oakridge Street and 2 Oakridge Street in Halswell.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to a recent enquiry from a customer who wanted both bus stops on Oakridge Street to be marked.

2.2 The markings and relocation of both the bus stops support the better usage of the space by buses and improves accessibility for people using the bus stop.

3. Staff Recommendations

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to approve Option 1:

Marked bus stop beside 1B-4/3 Oakridge Street, referred to as ‘A1’:

1. That any previous resolutions pertaining to stopping and parking controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking and traffic controls described in the agenda staff report, are revoked.

2. Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking and stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Oakridge Street referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘No Stopping’ in Plan TG135612, dated 13 September 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

3. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Oakridge Street referred to as A1, identified as ‘Bus Stop’ in Plan TG135612, dated 13 September 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

4. That the above resolutions take effect when the stopping and parking control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda staff report, are in place.

Marked bus stop beside 2 Oakridge Street, referred to as ‘A2’:

5. That any previous resolutions pertaining to parking and stopping controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the parking and traffic controls described in the agenda staff report, are revoked.

6. Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the parking and stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Oakridge Street referred to as A2 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘No Stopping’ in Plan TG135612, dated 13 September 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

7. Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Oakridge Street referred to as A2, identified as ‘Bus Stop’ on Plan TG135612, dated 13 September 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

8. That the above resolutions take effect when the parking and stopping control devices that evidence the restrictions described in the agenda 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 in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 – Install bus stop line markings and relocation of existing bus stops beside 1B Oakridge Street and 2 Oakridge Street (refer to Attachment A)

· Option 2 –Do nothing, bus stops remain unmarked

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Option 1)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Prevent other vehicles parking in close proximity to the existing bus stop sign, ensuring the space is kept clear for buses to use unimpeded.

· The existing bus stop locations provide convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area.

· Relocation of the bus stops ensure that both bus stops are in the preferable ‘tail to tail’ position, that is, facing away from each other. Due to the high frequency services of both bus stops, the existing bus stop locations can lead to buses being stopped at the same time on both sides of the road.

4.3.2 The disadvantage of this option include:

· Reallocation of four on-street parking spaces (three parking spaces beside 1B-4/3 Oakridge Street and one parking space beside 2 Oakridge Street). Note that the existing bus stops are designated by a sign only, meaning that parking within six metres, either side of the bus stop sign is not permitted, unless the vehicle is a bus. The total on-street parking reallocation is the difference in length between the unmarked bus stop and the proposed marked bus stop, where a vehicle could legally park (excluding driveways).

5. Context/Background

Overview of existing bus stops

5.1 The existing unmarked bus stops are located beside 1B-4/3 Oakridge Street and 2 Oakridge Street. The location of the bus stops are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Existing unmarked bus stops on Oakridge Street near Nicholls Road

5.2 The existing bus stops are unmarked, this means they are identified by means of a bus stop sign only. The bus stops are used to pick-up and drop-off customers, they are not used as timing points.

5.3 The existing bus stops are also positioned ‘side by side’, rather than the preferable ‘tail to tail’, that is, facing away from each other. Due to the high frequency services of both bus stops, the existing position can be a road safety issue, where chances that buses would be stopped exactly the same time on both sides of the road is higher. Relocating the existing bus stop beside 1B Oakridge Street, 10 metres in a northwest direction and relocating the existing bus stop beside 2 Oakridge Street, 13 metres in a south east direction will help achieve the preferable ‘tail to tail’ position of both bus stops, as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Proposed line markings and relocation for existing bus stops beside 1B and 2 Oakridge Street

5.4 The bus stops are serviced by the Orbiter and number 125 bus lines. The Orbiter line operates to a 10 to 15 minutes scheduled frequency while the 125 bus line operates at a 15 to 30 minutes schedule frequency depending on the time of day.

5.5 Recent passenger boarding numbers indicate about four passengers use the bus stop beside 1B Oakridge Street (travelling away from Central City) to board a bus per weekday and about 27 passengers use the bus stop beside 2 Oakridge Street (travelling towards Central City) to board a bus per weekday.

5.6 Staff acknowledge that the existing passenger waiting facility beside 2 Oakridge Street is insufficient. With the aim to provide shelters at bus stops that have more than about 20 to 25 passenger boardings per day, the passenger boarding number indicates it is high enough to warrant the install of a bus passenger shelter. Once the relocation of the existing bus stop is approved, staff will process with consultation for the install of a shelter with adjacent property owners and occupiers.

Strategic Alignment

5.7 All recommendations in this report supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.7.1 Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

· Level of Service: 10.4.12.0 Reduce the number of customer service requests relating to quality and cleanliness of public transport infrastructure facilities - 312

5.8 The Council’s strategic framework is a key consideration in guiding the recommendations in this report. The provision of bus stops allows our communities access to public transport which in turn allows the Council to achieve:

· Strong communities

· Liveable city

· Healthy environment, and

· Prosperous economy.

5.9 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved opportunities to access and use public transport.

5.10 All recommendations in this report align with the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy (2019), which provides a framework to address parking related issues and the management of competing demands for public space within the cities suburban areas. As indicated in Table 1, policy one of the Suburban Parking Policy prioritises the provision of bus stops ahead of residential, short stay and commuter parking.

Priority	Commercial Areas	Residential Areas	Other Areas
1^st	Safety	Safety	Safety
2^nd	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity	Movement and amenity
3^rd	Mobility parking	Mobility parking	Mobility parking
4^th	Bus stops/cycle parks/bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micro mobility (e.g. scooters)	Bus stops	Bus stops/cycle parks/ bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micromobility (e.g. scooters)
5^th	Taxi ranks (special passenger vehicle stands)	Residents parking	Short stay parking
6^th	Loading zones	Cycle parks/bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micromobility (e.g. scooters)	Residents parking
7^th	Short stay parking	Short stay parking	Commuter parking
8^th	Residents parking	Commuter parking
9^th	Commuter parking

Table 1: Policy 1, Suburban Parking Policy, prioritisation of road space

Decision Making Authority

5.11 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.

5.12 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.

5.13 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

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

5.15 The level of significance was determined by assessing the number of properties affected by the proposed options.

6. Options Analysis

Options Considered

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

· Option 1 – Install bus stop line markings and relocation of existing bus stops beside 1B Oakridge Street and 2 Oakridge Street (refer to Attachment A)

· Option 2 –Do nothing, bus stops remain unmarked

Options Description

6.2 Option One - Install bus stop line markings and relocating existing bus stops to 1B-4/3 Oakridge Street and 2 Oakridge Street.

Option Description: Mark the existing bus stops and relocate both bus stops as shown in Figure 2, (see section 5.3) and in accordance with Attachment A.

6.2.1 Option Advantages

· Prevent other vehicles parking in close proximity to the existing bus stop sign, ensuring the space is kept clear for buses to use unimpeded.

· The existing bus stop locations provide convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area.

· Relocation of the bus stops ensure that both bus stops are in the preferable ‘tail to tail’ position, that is, facing away from each other.

6.2.2 Option Disadvantages

6.3 Option Two – Do nothing, bus stops remain unmarked

6.3.1 Option Description: Bus stops remain unmarked beside 1B and 2 Oakridge Street.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· No reallocation of on-street parking.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· As vehicles are legally permitted to park up to six metre from the bus stop sign, this means the space beside the bus stop sign cannot be considered as a given for buses to come to a halt. The accessibility issues faced by the customer whose access to public transport is being limited due to the location of parked vehicles may continue.

Analysis Criteria

6.4 All new bus stops are planned and implemented in accordance with the Christchurch Bus Stop Guidelines (2009) and the Construction Standard Specifications (2018). This is why staff have included Option 2 in the report as it achieves the objectives of the guidelines.

6.5 As part of the markings of both bus stops, the bus stop beside 1B Oakridge Street is relocated 10 metres in a north west direction, whereas the bus stop beside 2 Oakridge Street is relocated 13 metres in a south east direction to ensure that both the bus stops on Oakridge Street are positioned in the preferable ‘tail to tail’.

Options Considerations

6.6 Option 1 presented in this report is consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028).

6.7 The absence of bus stop line markings in Option 2 (Do Nothing) is not fully consistent with the Public Transport Infrastructure, Level of Service 10.4.12: Reduce the number of customer service requests relating to the quality and cleanliness of public transport infrastructure. The absence of bus stop line markings allows vehicles the legal permission to park up to six metre from the bus stop sign. This means the space beside the bus stop sign cannot be considered as a given for buses to come to a halt.

7. Community Views and Preferences

7.1 While the bus stops are existing, letters were sent to the affected property owners. The letters outlined the improvements, which is marking the existing bus stops. Details of the Community Board meeting and how to request speaking rights were sent out on a later date.

7.2 At the time of preparing this report, no negative feedback or enquiries concerning the information provided in the letter have been received by staff.

7.3 Positive feedback has been received from three members of the public in support of the proposals.

8. Legal Implications

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

9. Risks

9.1 Should the Community Board approve the ‘Do Nothing’ option, this means the space beside the bus stop signs cannot be considered as a given for buses to come to a halt for passengers to board and alight the bus. Hence the issues raised by the customer whose access to public transport is being limited due to the location of parked vehicles may continue.

10. Next Steps

10.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

10.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately two months after the Community Board’s approval.

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

14. Springs Road - Proposed Traffic Island Extension
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1066328
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Barry Hayes, Traffic Engineer

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the extension of a traffic island on Springs Road by the Garvins Road intersection in Hornby (refer Attachment A) and the associated new ‘No U-turn’ restrictions.

2. Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 There have been reports that motorists are still performing illegal right turns into Garvins Road from Springs Road, even though an existing No Right Turn sign is in place. The proposed traffic island extension is to restrict such movements thereby improving traffic safety.

3. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Approve that the existing traffic island on Springs Road by the Garvins Road intersection be extended by approximately 15 metres to the south west in accordance with Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

2. Approve under Part 2, Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that south bound vehicles on Springs Road be prohibited from performing a U-turn near the traffic island as indicated by the Proposed ‘No U-turn’ sign in Plan TG135523 Issue 1, dated 21 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

3. Revoke 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 resolutions 1. and 2. above.

4. Approve that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions and traffic controls described in the agenda staff report, are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

4. Key Points

4.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 - Extending Traffic Island and proposed ‘No U-turn’ restriction (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing (right turn restriction signage remains on the existing median island)

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Further reduces the risk of a crash by channelling motorists.

· Straight through motorists are not held up by the illegal right turning motorists.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· None identified. There is an existing ‘No Right Turn’ sign already in place.

5. Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

5.1 Safety concerns have been identified and raised at the intersection of Springs Road and Garvins Road as some motorists are still performing illegal no right turns from Springs Road into Garvins Road.

5.2 Previously, the traffic island was designed and constructed such that it would allow a fire engine to perform a right turn from Springs Road into Garvins Road in cases of an emergency. With the fire station having relocated to Wilmers Road, such a movement is no longer required.

5.3 The proposed traffic island extension will further discourage the right turn movement from Springs Road into Garvins Road.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.4 The Council’s Strategic Priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

5.5 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

5.6 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

Decision Making Authority/ Te Mana Whakatau

5.7 Part 2, Clause 17 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the Council with the authority to install a U-turn restriction by resolution.

5.8 The Community Boards have delegated authority from the Council to exercise the delegations as set out in the Register of Delegations. The delegations for the Community Boards includes the resolution to construct, remove, or alter facilities for safety, health, or convenience of the public, or for the control of traffic or the enforcement of traffic laws and traffic control devices.

5.9 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 / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

5.11 The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

5.13 Community Consultation

5.14 Consultation on the Springs Road/Garvins Road right turn ban was undertaken from 14 June 2018 until 6 July 2018.

5.15 The submission form for the right turn ban for Springs Road/Garvins Road asked submitters to indicate whether Yes – I/we support the plan, No – I/we do not support the plan. Space was also available on the feedback form for any further comments.

5.16 Approximately 420 consultation leaflets were hand delivered to businesses and properties to Avro Crescent, Consul Place, De Havilland Street, Dickson Crescent, Electra Place, Garvins Road and sections of Corsair Drive, Harvard Avenue and Springs Road, posted to 131 absentee land owners and were also sent to 20 key stakeholders. Additional leaflets were available at the Civic Offices, Hornby Service Centre and Upper Riccarton Community Library.

5.17 The project was posted on the Council’s ‘Have Your say’ website https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-council/consultations-and-submissions/haveyoursay/show/155 and shared on the community neighbourly page.

5.18 At the close of consultation, 94 submissions were received, with 64 submitters supporting the ban and 30 submitters who did not support the ban.

5.19 All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board members. All submissions are available publicly online at https://cccgovtnz.cwp.govt.nz/the-council/consultationsand-submissions/haveyoursay/show/155

5.20 All submitters from this consultation have been advised on the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights. Also included in this letter was a link to the feedback summary with project team responses.

6. Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1 – Extending Traffic Island and proposed No U-turn restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

6.2 No other options were considered.

Options Descriptions

6.3 Option One: Preferred Option: Extending Traffic Island and proposed No U-turn restrictions

6.3.1 Option Description: Extending the traffic island and proposed No U-turn restrictions on Springs Road by Garvins Road intersection in accordance with Attachment A.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Further reduces the risk of a crash by channelling motorists.

· Straight through motorists are not held up by the illegal right turning motorists.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· None identified. There is already an existing No Right Turn sign in place.

6.4 Option Two: Do Nothing

6.4.1 Option Description: Do not change traffic management at the intersection. This option will not enhance safety at the Springs Road/Garvins Road intersection.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· None identified. While the right turn into Garvins Road may still physically be possible, this movement would remain banned.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· Vehicles would still be likely to perform an illegal right turn movement into Garvins Road from Springs Road.

· Does not address the right turn safety concerns on Springs Road and therefore the safety risk has not been addressed.

7. Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

7.1 The local community were consulted in June 2018 in relation to the right turn restriction and the associated safety issues at that location. It was indicated that the Council was considering safety improvements, which would reinforce the right turn restriction.

7.2 At the time of the consultation, the ‘no right turn’ sign was missing and there was a perception that the restriction was not in effect, which affected the consultee responses. This was in fact, not the case as the restriction had been approved by the Community Board in June 2010.

Significance

7.3 The level of significance of this option is low and is consistent with section 5 of this report.

7.4 Engagement requirements for this level of significance are minimal and included a letterbox drop to the local community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

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

Community Views and Preferences

7.6 The New Zealand Fire Service have been provided with all the information on this project. They have advised that the local fire station has relocated. Therefore, their previous access concerns for their vehicles via Garvins Road no longer apply.

7.7 Road users are specifically affected by this option due to the effect of the turning restriction. The following outlines the main themes of the feedback:

· 32 submitters suggested changes to the road layout including shortening the island, removing the island, putting in a cycle crossing point, installing a turning bay and making the island longer.

· 25 submitters commented that the existing layout causes congestion, near misses, is dangerous and that the ban would make it safer.

· Twelve submitters commented that the ban was already in place but the signage had been removed.

· Eight submitters had concerns about the impact the right-turn ban would have on Neill Street. These included requests for speed bumps, concerns about speed and congestion.

· Six submitters commented that the ban would inconvenience locals.

· Five submitters commented that they did not see a problem with vehicles turning right from Springs Road into Garvins Road.

· Four submitters commented that the ban would cause congestion.

7.8 As a result of consultation, the following changes have been made to the final plan for approval:

· Extension of the curbed median island on Springs Road to deter unsafe turning movements.

· Installation of a U-turn restriction sign on Springs Road, near the intersection with Garvins Road.

· Removal of the right turn restriction sign and replacement with a U-turn restriction sign and keep left sign at the end of the extended median island (near the intersection with Garvins Road) (Attachment A refers).

7.9 A letter has been sent to all submitters advising the outcome of the consultation, including details of the Board meeting and how they can request speaking rights. Also included in the letter was a link to the feedback summary.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

9.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately eight to ten weeks after the contractor receives the request.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Springs Road - Proposed Traffic Island Extension and No U-turn Restrictions - Plan TG135523 - For Board Approval	106

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Operations

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Traffic Engineer

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

15. Colligan Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1207259
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Barry Hayes, Traffic Engineer

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider options to improve the access for Waste Management’s rubbish vehicles using the Colligan Street, Upper Riccarton, cul-de-sac section as proposed in Attachment A.

2. Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to requests from Waste Management that their trucks are having difficulty turning in the street when vehicles are parked at this location.

2.2 These measures have been requested to:

2.2.1 Prevent cars parking at the location thereby improving the turning movements for rubbish and emergency vehicles using the short section of cul-de-sac.

3. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Approve that under Clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited between the hours of 6am and 6pm Monday to Friday on that part of Colligan Street as shown as ‘Proposed No Stopping 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday’ in Plan TG133759 dated 8 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

2. Revoke 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 1. above.

3. Approve that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions, are in place.

4. Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

4.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Improve turning movement for rubbish and emergency vehicles.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Removes approximately two unrestricted car parking spaces.

5. Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

5.1 Waste Management has indicated that its rubbish trucks are having difficulty turning around due to vehicles parking in the cul-de-sac section of Colligan Street.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.2 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

5.3 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

5.4 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

5.5 Part 1, Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017 provides the 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 / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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 the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

6. Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

6.2 Originally, staff proposed No Stopping At All Times (yellow lines) restrictions but a resident had opposed that proposal, hence the revised no stopping with time and day restrictions now being proposed.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.3 Option One: Preferred Option: Install No Stopping Restrictions

6.3.1 Option Description: Install No Stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Improve turning movement for rubbish truck and emergency vehicles.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· Removes approximately two unrestricted car parking spaces.

6.4 Option Two: Do Nothing

6.4.1 Option Description: Do not change traffic management at this location.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· Supported by adjacent property owner because there is no impact on on-street parking.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not improve turning movements for rubbish and emergency vehicles.

7. Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

7.1 Sixteen affected property owners and residents were advised by letter of the original option of the proposed No Stopping At All Times Restrictions (yellow lines).

7.2 One property owner replied in favour of the proposal, and one submission was against the proposal. The submission requested that staff look at no stopping restrictions from 6am to 6pm on Rubbish Collection Day Only.

Staff considered the submission, and upon review, it is difficult to enforce the rubbish collection day, as sometimes it can change to the next day when it falls on a public holiday.

In addition, visitors would not know when the rubbish collection day is in the area hence staff are proposing the No Stopping 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday restrictions.

7.3 Staff sent the proposal by letter to the sixteen affected property owners and residents.

7.4 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

9.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately four weeks after the contractor receives the request.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Colligan Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday - Plan TG133759 - For Board Approval	111

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Operations

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Senior Transportation Engineer

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

16. 119 Buchanans Road - Proposed P15 Parking Restriction
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1147841
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Barry Hayes, Traffic Engineer

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to approve the installation of a P15 parking restriction at 119 Buchanans Road, Hornby, in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to a request from the Coupland’s Bakeries business manager at 119 Buchanans Road to have improved access to short term parking for customers especially those with large vehicles.

3. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Buchanans Road as indicated in Attachment A, Plan TG135514 dated 25 July 2019 of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 15 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

2. Revoke 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 1. above.

3. Approve that the above resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions are in place (or removed in the case of revocations).

4. Key Points

4.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 - Install P15 Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Support the adjacent business.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Removes six unrestricted car parking spaces.

5. Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

5.1 The Council has been contacted by Coupland’s Bakeries business manager at 119 Buchanans Road seeking short term on-street parking to service the property.

5.2 It is sought that six unrestricted parking spaces fronting the property on Buchanans Road be amended to P15 spaces to support customers to the property.

5.3 There is a medium to high demand for customer parking in the area on weekdays.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.4 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

5.5 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

5.6 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

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

5.8 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.

5.9 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 / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

5.11 The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

6. Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1 - Install P15 Parking Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

6.2 A shorter P5 or P10 parking restriction was considered but ruled out as customers would require approximately 15 minutes to shop.

Options Descriptions

6.3 Option One: Preferred Option: Install P15 Parking Restrictions

6.3.1 Option Description: Replace six unrestricted parking spaces with P15 parking restrictions along the frontage of 119 Buchanans Road in accordance with Attachment A.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Support the adjacent businesses.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· Remove six unrestricted car parking spaces.

6.4 Option Two: Do Nothing

6.4.1 Option Description: Retain existing unrestricted parking spaces fronting 119 Buchanans Road.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· Has no impact for on-street parking.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· It does not support the adjacent businesses.

7. Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

7.1 The proposed changes are limited to the frontage of 119 Buchanans Road.

7.2 Affected property owners and residents were advised by letter of the recommended option. There was no opposition received.

7.3 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

9.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately four weeks after the contractor receives the request.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	119 Buchanans Road - Proposed P15 Parking Restriction - Plan TG135514 - For Board Approval	117

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Operations

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Senior Transportation Engineer

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

17. Division Street - Proposed P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone Parking Restrictions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1200279
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Barry Hayes, Traffic Engineer

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider options to approve the installation of P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled parking restrictions and a P10 Loading Zone parking restrictions on Division Street, Riccarton, in accordance with Attachment A.

2. Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to a request from the nearby businesses to have improved access to various short term parking for customers.

3. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Division Street as indicated as ‘Proposed P10 Parking Restriction’ in Plan TG 135505 dated 15 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 10 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

2. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Division Street as indicated as ‘Proposed P30 Parking Restriction’ in Plan TG 135505 dated 15 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 30 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

3. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Division Street as indicated as Existing P60 Parking Restriction to be retained’ in Plan TG 135505 dated 15 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place for any vehicles, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 60 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

4. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Division Street as indicated as ‘Proposed Disabled Space’ in Plan TG 135505 dated 15 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a parking place for holders of approved disabled persons’ parking permits, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 120 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

5. Approve that under Clauses 7 and 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Division Street as indicated as ’Proposed P10 Loading Zone Goods Vehicles Only’ in Plan TG 135505 dated 15 October 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report, is reserved as a loading zone for goods vehicles only, subject to the following restriction: the maximum time for parking of any vehicle is 10 minutes between the hours of 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

6. Revoke 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 1. to 5. above.

7. Approve that the above resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions, are in place.

4. Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

4.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 - Install P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone parking restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (preferred option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Support the adjacent business.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· None identified

5. Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

5.1 Business owners have contacted the Council during the engagement with stakeholders as part of the Riccarton Road Bus Priority Improvement Project seeking additional short term on- street parking on Division Street to service nearby businesses.

5.2 In response to requests from nearby businesses, the Council is proposing to change some of the short term parking times to provide other short term parking options on Division Street to support customers of nearby businesses on Riccarton Road that no longer have parking available immediately outside their premises.

5.3 It is sought that fourteen P60 parking spaces be replaced with three P10 parking spaces, ten P30 parking spaces and one Disabled parking space. The remaining, existing thirteen P60 parking spaces and the Loading Zone will be retained (refer Attachment A).

5.4 There is a high demand for customer parking in the area throughout the week.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.5 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

5.6 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

5.7 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

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

5.9 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.

5.10 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 / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

5.12 The level of significance was determined by the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

6. Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1 - Install P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone parking restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do nothing

6.2 The option to maintain the majority of the existing P60 parking spaces was presented to the business owners but was not well received.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.3 Option One: Preferred Option: Install P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone parking restrictions

6.3.1 Option Description: Install P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone parking restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Support the adjacent business.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· None identified

6.4 Option Two: Do Nothing

6.4.1 Option Description: Retain existing parking restrictions on Division Street.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· Has no impact for on-street parking.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· It does not support the adjacent businesses.

7. Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

7.1 Consultation, via leaflet and the Council webpage, was open from 10 to 23 September 2019.

7.2 Leaflets were hand-delivered by staff to businesses on Division Street and Riccarton Road between Kauri and Rimu Streets, as well as posted and emailed to absentee owners and stakeholders. Information and a link to the consultation material was also included in the Riccarton Road bus upgrade newsletter issued on 12 September 2019.

7.3 Early discussions with Westfield Shopping Centre management prompted the following questions and project team responses:

7.3.1 Will there be difficulty for people getting in and out of the mobility park in that location? No, the parking space will be wider than a normal parking space.

7.3.2 Should the mobility park be next to a footpath e.g. still on the western side but at the Riccarton Road end? This also gives access to the signalised crossing. There is a possibility that later this space will be taken up temporarily with a portable wooden platform, which would be used as ‘green seating’. We can arrange for a contractor to provide a flush to kerb ‘cut down’ (similar to that of the loading zone area) at the proposed location for the mobility park. This would give wheelchair access to the path leading back to Riccarton Road.

7.3.3 Will it be confusing and frustrating for people to have three different parking restriction times in such a small area, especially on the left hand side? For example: Should all these be P30? Or all these P10, and the rest of the street P60? No, the parking spaces will be clearly sign-posted, and it is reasonably common throughout the city for there to be several different time restrictions in one area. The Council is proposing this combination in response to feedback, aimed at providing the community with the best combination of short term parking options to allow for reasonable time limits and parking turnover in the street.

7.3.4 There were seven submissions received during the consultation period– five in support of the proposal and two opposed.

7.3.5 One submitter from Hornby who does not support the proposal, commented that while a good idea, encouraging more traffic movements in and out of this street will cause more issues and hold-ups on Riccarton Road, better to provide more parking on the other side of Riccarton Road. Staff responded that there will be restricted left-in and left-out movements at Division Street only and hence traffic movements will be minimised.

7.3.6 Another submitter from Bishopdale commented that shortening the parking time would just cause more hassle and stress for people in the area – better to provide more parking spaces. Staff responded that there is a limited amount of on-street parking available, and short term parking restrictions support customers of the nearby businesses.

7.3.7 The Community Board has received a copy of the full submissions (refer Attachment B). Submitters have been sent a link to the full submissions (names only), a summary of consultation and information on how to request to speak to the elected members about their feedback when the Board considers the report.

7.3.8 No changes have been made to the proposal following consultation, and the final proposal is in accordance with Attachment A.

7.4 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

9.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately four weeks after the contractor receives the request.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Division Street - Proposed P10, P30, P60, P120 Disabled Parking and P10 Loading Zone Parking Restrictions - Plan TG135505 - For Board Approval	124
b ⇩	Division Street - Proposed Short Term Parking - Submissions Received	125

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Barry Hayes - Traffic Operations

Philippa Upton - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Senior Transportation Engineer

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

18. Bartlett Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1212083
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Barry Hayes, Traffic Engineer

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider options to improve the visibility for road users when exiting driveways at the bend in Bartlett Street, Riccarton.

2. Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1 This report is staff generated in response to requests from road users who have concerns relating to vehicle parking at the bend in Bartlett Street.

2.2 These measures have been requested to:

2.2.1 Control car parking which is blocking the visibility for road users exiting driveways.

3. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Note 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 part of Bartlett Street as shown by ‘Proposed No Stopping Restriction’ and ‘Existing No Stopping Restriction’ in Plan TG135520 dated 30 July 2019 in Attachment A of the agenda staff report.

2. Revoke 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 1. above.

3. Approve that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road markings that evidence the restrictions, are in place.

4. Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

4.1 The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2 The following feasible options have been considered:

· Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

4.3 Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

4.3.1 The advantages of this option include:

· Addresses community concerns over the lack of visibility at the driveways.

· Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at No.23 and No.25 Bartlett Street driveways.

· Legalises the no stopping on-street parking, as currently there is not enough spacing for an average vehicle to park in between No.23 and No.25 driveways.

4.3.2 The disadvantages of this option include:

· Displaces parking to other locations.

5. Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

5.1 Road users have reported that vehicle parking in between No.23 and No.25 Bartlett Street by the bend, protrudes out from the driveway and causes visibility issues when exiting the driveways.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

5.2 The Council’s strategic priorities have been considered in formulating the recommendations in this report, however this area of work is not specifically covered by an identified priority.

5.3 The recommendations in this report will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved road safety.

5.4 The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety and Efficiency Service Plan in the Council’s Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

Decision Making Authority Te Mana Whakatau

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

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 / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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 the low level of impact and low number of people affected by the recommended decision.

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

Context

5.11 Bartlett Street has a high parking demand due to commuters parking all day.

5.12 Visibility can be limited by parked vehicle for driveways No.23 and No.25 Bartlett Street. No.23 Bartlett Street driveway is servicing the Margaret Stoddart Retirement Village which generates a moderate number of traffic movements.

6. Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

· Option 1 - Install No Stopping Restrictions (preferred option)

· Option 2 - Do Nothing

6.2 No other options were considered.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

6.3 Option One: Preferred Option: Install No Stopping Restrictions

6.3.1 Option Description: Install No Stopping restrictions in accordance with Attachment A.

6.3.2 Option Advantages

· Addresses community concerns over the lack of visibility at the driveways.

· Reduces the risk of a crash by improving sightlines at No.23 and No.25 Bartlett Street driveways.

· Legalised the no stopping on-street parking, as currently there is not enough spacing for an average vehicle to park in between No.23 and No.25 driveways.

6.3.3 Option Disadvantages

· Displaces parking to other locations.

6.4 Option Two: Do Nothing

6.4.1 Option Description: Do not change traffic management at intersection. This option will not meet Council’s adopted sight distance requirement.

6.4.2 Option Advantages

· No impact on on-street parking.

6.4.3 Option Disadvantages

· Does not address community concerns over the lack of visibility at the driveways.

7. Community Views and Preferences / Ngā mariu ā-Hāpori

7.1 Three affected property owners and residents were advised of the recommended option by letter.

7.2 One property owner/resident replied in favour of the proposal.

7.3 No submission was against the proposal.

7.4 The Team Leader Parking Compliance supports the preferred option.

7.5 The do nothing option is inconsistent with community requests to improve visibility at the driveways.

8. Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

9. Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1 Approval is required by the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

9.2 If approved, the recommendations will be implemented approximately four weeks after the contractor receives the request.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Bartlett Street - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions - Plan TG135520 - For Board Approval	131

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Author

Barry Hayes - Traffic Operations

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Senior Transportation Engineer

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

19. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Representation on Outside Organisations for 2019-2022
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1271796
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider the appointment of Board representation on local outside organisations for the 2019-2022 term.

1.2 This report is staff generated to provide continuity with the Board’s existing liaison representation arrangements and links with local community groups and organisations.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Appoint a Board member(s) as its representative on each of the following organisations for the 2019-22 term:

Outside organisations (one Board member)

· Christchurch Streets and Garden Awards Committee

· Halswell Domain Sports Association

· Keep Christchurch Beautiful

· Neighbourhood Support Canterbury

· Riccarton Bush Trust

· Templeton Holy Chapel Family Trust

· Hornby Community Care Trust

· Te Poutama Ārahi Rangatahi Residence Community Liaison Committee

Residents’ Associations (one to two Board members (as liaison)

· Awatea Residents’ Association

· Central Riccarton Residents’ Association

· Deans Avenue Precinct Society

· Delamain Residents’ Association

· Greater Hornby Residents’ Association

· Halswell Residents’ Association

· Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association

· Riccarton Bush/Kilmarnock Residents’ Association

· Riccarton Park Residents’ Association

· Steadman Road Area Residents’ Association

· Templeton Residents’ Association

· Westmorland Residents’ Association

· Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association

3. Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Key Points

3.1 Each triennium, Community Boards have routinely appointed members to various local organisations to be a Board liaison and point of contact for those groups. This important liaison role enables two way contact and information sharing between the Board member(s) appointed and community organisations on behalf of the Board.

3.2 At the commencement of its new term, the Board has appointed a member(s) as liaison to a group that represents and/or plays a key role in local projects and issues, is included in supporting community engagement of the same, and represents a geographic area or specific sector of the community. The projects and/or issues are generally of local significance and relate back to the Council's Long Term and Annual Plans, and the Community Board Plan.

Content/Background

1.1 For its 2016-19 term, the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board made the following appointments:

Organisation	members appointed
Christchurch Streets and Garden Awards Committee	Debbie Mora
Halswell Domain Sports Association	Ross McFarlane
Hornby Community Care Trust	Natalie Bryden
Keep Christchurch Beautiful	Debbie Mora, and Catherine Chu (alternate)
Neighbourhood Support Canterbury	Mike Mora, and Ross McFarlane (alternate)
Riccarton Bush Trust	Mike Mora
Selwyn District Council Water Race Subcommittee	Mike Mora
Templeton Holy Chapel Family Trust	Jimmy Chen, and Debbie Mora (alternate)
Te Poutama Ārahi Rangatahi Residence Community Liaison Committee	Mike Mora

Residents’ Associations (liaison role)	Members appointed
Awatea Residents’ Association	Ross McFarlane and Mike Mora
Central Riccarton Residents’ Association	Helen Broughton and Catherine Chu
Deans Avenue Precinct Society	Helen Broughton and Catherine Chu
Delamain Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Gilberthorpes Estate Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Greater Hornby Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Halswell Residents’ Association	Debbie Mora and Ross McFarlane
Ilam and Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association	Helen Broughton and Catherine Chu
Riccarton Bush/Kilmarnock Residents’ Association	Helen Broughton and Catherine Chu
Riccarton Park Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Steadman Road Area Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Templeton Residents’ Association	Natalie Bryden and Mike Mora
Westmorland Residents’ Association	Debbie Mora and Ross McFarlane
Yaldhurst Rural Residents’ Association	Mike Mora and Debbie Mora

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

20. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board - Governance Arrangements for 2020
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1271835
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1 The purpose of this report is for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to consider approving its ordinary meetings arrangements for the period February 2020 to December 2020.

1.2 This report is staff generated to enable the Board to consider the adoption of its governance structure involving a meetings calendar through until December 2020, and to appoint a Submissions Committee for the term.

1.3 The Board can review these arrangements during 2020 should it wish to do so.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Hold an Ordinary Meeting of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board on Tuesday 4 February 2020 at 4pm at the Rārākau: Riccarton Centre, 199 Clarence Street.

2. Adopt the following schedule of Tuesday dates for its Ordinary Meetings in 2020:

4 February 2020 4pm

18 February 2020 4pm

3 March 2020 4pm

17 March 2020 4pm

31 March 2020 4pm

14 April 2020 4pm

5 May 2020 4pm

19 May 2020 4pm

2 June 2020 4pm

16 June 2020 4pm

30 June 2020 4pm

14 July 2020 4pm

4 August 2020 4pm

18 August 2020 4pm

1 September 2020 4pm

15 September 2020 4pm

29 September 2020 4pm

13 October 2020 4pm

3 November 2020 4pm

17 November 2020 4pm

1 December 2020 4pm

15 December 2020 4pm

3. Note the holding of Tuesday Board Briefings from 4pm to 6pm in week two of each calendar month.

4. Establish a Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Submissions Committee for the 2019-22 term as follows:

a. Term of Reference being to respond on behalf of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board to submission opportunities as they arise.

b. Helen Broughton, Gamal Fouda, Andrei Moore, Debbie Mora, Mike Mora and Mark Peters to be appointed as members of the Submissions Committee.

c. The Committee Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to be appointed by the Submissions Committee.

d. The quorum of the Submissions Committee to be three members.

e. Where timeframes necessitate such action being required, the Submissions Committee be granted delegated authority to lodge submissions on behalf of the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board.

f. Any submissions made by the Submissions Committee to be reported to the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board for record purposes.

3. Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

Meeting Dates

3.1 The staff recommendation in this report for the Board’s meeting dates through until December 2020 was informed by:

Ÿ Board Workshops held on 12 and 26 November 2019.

Ÿ Having regard to other known scheduling in the Council’s 2020 meetings calendar.

Appointment of committees, subcommittees and other subordinate decision-making bodies

3.2 Clause 30, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 inter alia, provides that community boards may appoint committees, subcommittees or other subordinate decision-making bodies and joint committees considered appropriate. Also, clause 32(3) of the same schedule provides for community boards to delegate powers to a committee.

3.3 A committee appointed by a community board is subject in all things to the control of the local authority [read community board], and must carry out all general and special directions of the community board given in relation to the committee.

3.4 The relevant requirements for appointing a committee are:

Ÿ The minimum number of members is three, with a quorum of two, one of whom must be an elected member, or the quorum can be a greater number, as determined by the community board.

Ÿ At least one member of the committee must be an elected member of the community board.

Ÿ The members of a committee may, but need not be, elected community board members.

Ÿ A community board or committee may appoint to a committee or subcommittee a person who is not a member of the community board if, in the opinion of the board, that person has the skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the committee.

Ÿ A community board may appoint a member of a committee to be the chairperson of the committee, or if a chairperson is not appointed then the power of appointment may be exercised by the committee.

General

3.5 This report proposes the establishment of a Submissions Committee for the primary purpose of providing the Board with the opportunity to make timely submissions during the current term. This Committee operated successfully during the previous triennium.

3.6 The Board’s operational costs are provided for in the Council’s 2018-28 Long Term Plan.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments for this report.

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance / Te Whakatūturutanga ā-Ture

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 / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board

10 December 2019

22. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report - December 2019
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1316812
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager

1. Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

This report provides information on initiatives and current issues in the Community Board area and to provide the Board with a strategic overview to inform sound decision-making.

2. Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board resolve to:

1. Receive the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Area Report for December 2019.

2. Receive the staff memorandum regarding the Rārākau: Riccarton Centre.

3. Approve the allocation of $4,000 from the 2019-20 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Discretionary Response Fund to the 2019-20 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Youth Development Fund.

3. Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1 Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1 The Board continues to receive strategic, technical and procedural advice mainly through an ongoing programme of Board Briefings and/or Workshops.

3.1.2 Rārākau: Riccarton Centre

At its meeting on 19 November 2019, the Board requested feedback from staff on:

1. The amount of space to be occupied by staff at the Riccarton Centre.

2. The reason that public consultation was not undertaken.

3. The proposed removal of governance related space at the Hornby Library, Customer Services, and South West Leisure Centre.

These matters are addressed in the included staff memorandum (refer Attachment A).

3.2 Board Reporting

3.2.1 Board members are invited through the issued weekly meetings schedule, to forward to local staff, any items they would like highlighted for inclusion in the Board’s monthly Newsletter, Newsline releases and the monthly report to the Council.

4. Community Board Plan – Update against Outcomes

4.1 A Workshop was held with the Community Board on 26 November 2019 to identify initiatives for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Plan.

4.2 A Community Board Plan is a three-year plan that articulates the Board’s vision and priorities for its local community. Community Boards’ engage with their local communities to develop their Community Board Plan that is within the Council’s capacity to deliver and Council staff will work in good faith with Community Boards to ensure the specific deliverables of Community Board Plans align with the Council’s Service Plans detailing levels of service.

4.3 Once developed, a Community Board Plan is regarded by the Council as a key strategic document to be included in the preparation of Council planning and budgeting processes, including the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

5. Significant Council Projects in the Board Area

5.1 Strengthening Community Fund Projects

5.1.1 CDN Luncheon

The CDN Trust recently held its annual celebration and thank you luncheon. At the event, Matthew Minnish was recognised as their Volunteer of the Year, having worked with the Trust as a volunteer since 2013.

CDN have been fortunate to be able to call on a pool of over 90 volunteers, donating 8,894 hours of time. Their work has been spread over the various programmes in Hornby and Riccarton (Youth Hangout, Kids and Teen Camps, school based youth work) and administration.

Their workers annually interact with over 1,200 young people and their families.

5.1.2 Young 1's and Shufflebumz Programme

Really Useful Resources (RUR) Trust have decided to wind up the Young 1's and Shufflebumz programme at the end of 2019.

The programme for young (Under 25 year old) mothers and their pre-schoolers has been operating for 14 years. It has been based around music to movement with holistic parenting support provide to the young mothers.

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

6.1 Community Pride Garden Awards

The Christchurch Beautifying Association will undertake judging for the Community Pride Garden Awards between 18 January and 9 February 2020. An awards function to acknowledge Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Pride Garden Award recipients is to be scheduled for March 2020.

6.2 Edible and Sustainable Garden Awards

Entries for the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board’s Edible and Sustainable Garden Awards are currently open, closing on 20 January 2020. The awards programme is a partnership with the Canterbury Horticultural Society and sponsored by Mitre 10 MEGA Hornby.

6.3 Hei Hei Community Centre

The CDN Trust operate an after school hangout at the Hei Hei Community Centre on a Wednesday afternoon during the school term. Recently the students completed a mural which has been hung downstairs in the Community Centre.

6.4 Aidanfield Christian School - Park 'n' Stride - Trial

To address issues of safety and traffic congestion outside the Aidanfield Christian School a trial school-run was held where all parents who normally dropped their children off at school by car instead parked at Ngā Puna Wai and walked with their children along the existing track and in through the rear gate to the school.

Parents were rewarded with a free coffee and muffin and the students got a stamp card with which they could continue to collect stamps which equate to house points.

There were around fifty cars observed parking at Ngā Puna Wai that morning and initial feedback was positive, with one parent, remarking that it was the safest and quietest she had seen Dunbars Road the whole year.

Staff at Ngā Puna Wai have observed a few more cars parking there on mornings since the trial and a survey has been sent out to parents to seek feedback to see if the majority would use this route to the school on a regular basis. If the feedback finds most parents in favour of regularly using the route, the next step will be to secure funding to install a more formal pathway which links the walkway around Ngā Puna Wai to the rear gate of the Aidanfield Chrsitian School.

6.5 Events - Reports Back

6.5.1 Greater Hornby Residents’ Association - Family Fun Day

The Greater Hornby Residents' Association's annual Family Fun Day on the Park was successfully held on Sunday 24 November 2019 at Denton Park.

Supported by a range of local groups including Hornby Rugby, Hornby Netball and Hornby Cricket Clubs, and Marching Canterbury, the event attracted around 500 people throughout the afternoon. Activities included pony rides, merry-go rides, bouncy castle, face painting, airbrush tattoos, ripper rugby, netball, cricket and a variety of competitions and races. The event finished with Santa, riding in on a train showering the area in lollies for a scramble.

6.6 Templeton Domain – Public Tennis Court

The upgrade and repair to the Templeton Domain public tennis court has been successfully completed. The work included a new surface, fence and net. Roots from the nearby tree had cracked through the surface rendering the court unsafe to play on and there were numerous holes in the fence.

7. Community Board Funding Update

7.1 An information summary is provided on the status of the Board’s 2019-20 funding as at November 2019 (refer Attachment B).

7.2 Youth Development Fund

7.2.1 Under the Board's delegated authority, the following allocation was made on 12 November 2019:

· $600 to Cashmere Croquet Club on behalf of two members, towards competing in the Croquet New Zealand Golf Croquet 3+ Tournament in Auckland.

7.2.2 The Youth Development Fund at the time of writing has a balance of $1,035 available for allocation. Staff recommend that the Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board consider transferring $4,000 from the 2019-20 Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Discretionary Response Fund to the 2019-20 Youth Development Fund. There is currently $59,629 in the Discretionary Response Fund. The transfer would leave $55,629 in the Discretionary Response Fund.

7.3 Off the Ground Fund

7.3.1 Under the Board's delegated authority, the following allocations were made between 7 and 27 November 2019:

· $400 to Ilam/Upper Riccarton Residents’ Association towards a Community Connections event.

· $126 to Royal New Zealand Plunket Trust towards a Halswell Plunket Children’s Christmas event.

· $400 to Seed the Change He Kakano Hapi towards a Drinkable Rivers Riverhood One celebration.

7.4 In the recent Lotteries funding round, 126 on the Corner in Hei Hei received $50,000 to complete its second building, which they will be able to now finish and begin using.

The Hornby Community Centre also received $80,000 to upgrade its kitchen and reception area.

This funding will greatly assist both organisations into the future.

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Staff Memorandum - Rārākau:Riccarton Centre	149
b ⇩	Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Funding Update - November 2019	153

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Cindy Sheppard - Governance Support Officer

Marie Byrne - Community Development Advisor

Karla Gunby - Community Development Advisor

Emily Toase - Community Recreation Advisor

Noela Letufuga - Support Officer

Peter Dow - Community Board Advisor

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

Approved By

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

Name	Subject
Andrea Clemens	5G Technology - Health Effects

Criteria		Option 1 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 278/280 Halswell Road, install a shelter beside 278 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop	Option 2 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 276 Halswell Road, install a shelter beside 276 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop	Option 3 – Relocate the existing inbound bus stop to 274 Halswell Road, install a shelter beside 274 Halswell Road and mark the existing outbound bus stop	Option 4 – Do minimum: inbound bus stop not relocated and no shelter provided. Outbound bus stop marked and inclusive access improvements undertaken
Financial Implications	Cost to Implement	Relocation of the inbound bus stop: $20,000 for the installation of traffic controls, footpath accessibility upgrade for the bus stop plus $4,000 for consultation and the preparation of this report. Outbound bus stop accessibility improvements: $35,000 for the design and installation of the accessible boarding platform, footpath and traffic controls. Total cost: $55,000, plus $4,000 for the planning, consultation and preparation of this report.			Outbound bus stop accessibility improvements: $35,000 for the design and installation of the accessible boarding platform, footpath and traffic controls plus $4,000 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.			Not applicable
	Funding Source	Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for the shelter and bus stop infrastructure. The New Zealand Transport Agency are funding the pedestrian crossing provision.			Not applicable
	Impact on Rates	No impact			Not applicable
Environmental Impacts		Transport is the city’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Public transport is a key provision to support mode shift, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion and traffic crashes. Measures that promote the use of public transport and active modes helps achieve mode shift away from single occupancy vehicles, which helps the Council provide a healthy environment and a liveable city, as per the Council’s strategic framework vision.			Not improving the passenger waiting facilities at bus stops does not help Council achieve its vision to support mode shift and the associated benefits to the environment, improved social, community and accessibility impacts. The ‘Do minimum’ option (Option 4) does have the redeeming quality that the accessibility improvements will be carried out to the outbound bus stop irrespectively as the boarding platform does not require approval by the Community Board. However, staff propose that the existing bus stop is marked, which does require Community Board approval.
Social & Community Impacts		Option 1 will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved opportunities to access and use public transport. It also has the additional benefit of both bus stops being located closest to the pedestrian crossing and configured according to public transport infrastructure best practice. Relocating the inbound bus stop will allow a bus passenger shelter to be installed, which will help to achieve the Council’s desired Long Term Plan outcome of improved user satisfaction of public transport facilities. This option helps to achieve the Council’s desired Long Term Plan outcome of improved user satisfaction of public transport facilities, through providing sheltered waiting areas for customers commuting by bus.
Accessibility Impacts		Convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area and accessing nearby services. Of the three inbound bus stop locations, this option is closest to the new pedestrian crossing refuge, which positions it as the best location for associated pedestrian safety and accessibility benefits. The placement of the shelter considers the accessibility needs of those waiting for a bus and ensuring the path for those moving past the bus stop is unimpeded.	Option 2 and 3 have similar accessibility impacts as that of Option 1. However with each subsequent option, the inbound bus stop is located further away from the pedestrian crossing refuge.

Issue Specific Criteria
Criteria		Option 1	Option 2 - (Do Nothing)
Financial Implications	Cost to Implement	$16,000 for the shelter supply and installation, in addition to the bus stop remedial work, plus $750 for the planning, consultation and preparation of this report.	$750 for the planning, consultation and 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.	Not applicable
	Funding Source	Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop, seating and shelter installations.
	Impact on Rates	No impact
Environmental Impacts		Public transport is a key provision to support mode shift, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestion and traffic crashes. Measures that promote the use of public transport helps the Council provide a healthy environment and a liveable city, as per the Council’s strategic framework vision.	Not improving the bus stop and associated passenger waiting facilities does not help Council achieve its vision to support mode shift and the associated benefits to the environment, improved social, community and accessibility impacts.
Social & Community Impacts		This option helps to achieve the Council’s desired Long Term Plan outcome of improved user satisfaction of public transport facilities, through providing sheltered waiting areas for customers commuting by bus.
Accessibility Impacts		Improvements to bus stops have a positive impact to public transport customers. The placement of the shelter considers the accessibility needs of those waiting for a bus and ensuring the path for those moving past the bus stop is unimpeded. Marking bus stops is an important step in making public transport accessible.

Statutory Criteria
Criteria	Option 1	Option 2 - (Do Nothing)
Impact on Mana Whenua	No impact
Alignment to Council Plans & Policies	This option is consistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.	This option is inconsistent with the Council’s Plans and Policies.

Issue Specific Criteria
Criteria		Option 1	Option 2	Option 3 - (Do Nothing)
Financial Implications	Cost to Implement	$3,000 for the installation of new line markings, bridge blocks and removal of existing line marking. $1,000 for consultation and the preparation of this report.	$3000 for the installation of new line markings, bridge blocks and removal of existing line marking. Approximately $1,000 for consultation and preparation of this report.	$1,000 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.
	Funding Source	Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installations, plus existing staff budgets
	Impact on Rates	No impact
Environmental Impacts		Bus stops provide access to public transport. Public transport is part of a wider transport package to support mode shift to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reduce traffic congestion and traffic crashes. This in in turn helps the Council provide a healthy environment and a liveable city (Council’s strategic framework).
Social & Community Impacts		Option 1 and 2 will help to achieve the desired community outcome of a well-connected and accessible city through improved opportunities to access and use public transport.		Similar to Option 1 and 2
Accessibility Impacts		Convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area and ensuring the space is kept clear for buses to use with the conflict removed between bus passengers and vehicles movement at the property driveway.		Convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area, however does not address the risk of conflict between bus passengers and vehicles movement at the property driveway.

7. Correspondence - 5G Technology - Andrea Clemens
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1403548
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager

21. Waipuna/Halswell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Board Recess Committee 2019-20
Reference / Te Tohutoro:	19/1271421
Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:	Matthew Pratt, Community Governance Manager