Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Agenda

 

 

Notice of Meeting:

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

 

Date:                                    Monday 9 December 2019

Time:                                   3pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Michelle Lomax

Jake McLellan

Jackie Simons

Sara Templeton

 

 

4 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Arohanui Grace

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6663

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

Mihi/Karakia Timatanga............................................................................................ 4 

C          1.        Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha........................................................................ 4

B         2.        Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga......................................... 4

C          3.        Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua........................ 4

B         4.        Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui................................................................ 4

B         5.        Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga............................... 4

B         6.        Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga.................................................. 4

C          7.        Briefings................................................................................................. 15

Staff Reports

C          8.        Maryville Courts (Salisbury Street and Colombo Street) - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions............................................................................................ 17

C          9.        Gloucester Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road - Access to Public Transport............................................................................................... 31

C          10.      King Park Playground Renewal.................................................................. 51

C          11.      Radley Playground Renewal (Radley Street in Woolston).............................. 67

C          12.      Heathcote Dredging Stage 3 and 4a Tree Removals....................................... 81

C          13.      Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund Application Woolston Development Project Inc Family Support Worker. 119

C          14.      Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2019-20............................................................................................................ 125

C          15.      Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Governance Arrangements for 2020................................................................................................ 127

C          16.      Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - December 2019..................................................................................................... 133

 

B         17.      Elected Members’ Information Exchange................................................... 138

Karakia Whakamutunga

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

Mihi/Karakia Timatanga 

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha  

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

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant and to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

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

That the minutes of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 25 November 2019  be confirmed (refer page 5).

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

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

 

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

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

 

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

6.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

Unconfirmed

 

 

Waikura

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

Open Minutes

 

 

Date:                                    Monday 25 November 2019

Time:                                   3.01 pm

Venue:                                 The Board Room, 180 Smith Street,
Linwood

 

 

Present

Chairperson

Deputy Chairperson

Members

Sally Buck

Alexandra Davids

Yani Johanson

Darrell Latham

Tim Lindley

Michelle Lomax

Jake McLellan

Jackie Simons

Sara Templeton

 

 

25 November 2019

 

 

 

 

 

Arohanui Grace

Manager Community Governance, Linwood-Central-Heathcote

941 6663

arohanui.grace@ccc.govt.nz

www.ccc.govt.nz

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

 


Part A           Matters Requiring a Council Decision

Part B           Reports for Information

Part C           Decisions Under Delegation

 

 

Mihi/Karakia Timatanga: Arohanui  Grace 

 

The agenda was dealt with in the following order.

1.   Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha

Part C

Community Board Decision

There were no apologies.

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

Part C

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00131

That the minutes of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board meeting held on Monday, 4 November 2019 be confirmed.

Darrell Latham/Tim Lindley                                                                                                                                  Carried

4.   Public Forum / Te Huinga Whānui

Part B

 

4.1      Keep Christchurch Beautiful

Part B

Linda Keall, spoke on behalf Keep Christchurch Beautiful, outlining the work that the organisation does including working with school groups.  Ms Keall spoke about Keep Christchurch Beautiful awards that recognise volunteers.

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

Attachments

a       Keep Christchurch Beautiful presentation  

 

4.2      Perth Street Traffic Issues

Part B

Greg Partridge and Karen Dowling, Perth Street residents, spoke to the Board regarding parking and traffic issues on Perth Street.  They are concerned that there are frequently cars parked along both sides of the narrow street despite the street having five minute parking signs displayed. Their concern is that parked cars will mean that emergency vehicles will be unable to access the street.

In addition Mr Partridge and Ms Dowling advised that they consider that the speed of traffic along Perth Street is  inappropriate and they would like to see the speed limit reduced to 30 Kilometres per hour.

The Chairperson on behalf of the Board, thanked Greg Partridge and Karen Dowling for their presentation and invited them to attend an upcoming Board briefing with staff on traffic issues in the vicinity of Perth Street.

Attachments

a       Perth Street Issues Traffic Issues presentation  

 

4.3      Linwood Public Transport Hub

Part B

Elizabeth Graham, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding the proposed bus stop changes  near Eastgate Mall currently being consulted on as part of the Linwood Public Transport Hub proposal.  Ms Graham said she considered that there were better options than those currently out for consultation.

After questions from members, the Chairperson thanked Ms Graham for her presentation and encouraged her to make a submission giving her views on the proposal.

 

4.4      124 Garlands Road

Part B

Jenn Benden, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding possible community use of the vacant site at 124 Garlands Road for a low maintenance bike pump track. Ms Bennett tabled a general layout plan for a track and advised that there was community support for the idea and that fundraising would be the next step.

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

The Board requested staff advice on the availability of 124 Garlands Road for the creation of a community bike track, and for advice on how the community project to build a track could be progressed.

 

Attachments

a       Garlands Reserve handout  

 

4.5 Radley Park

Part B

Pauline De Wit, local resident, spoke to the Board regarding Radley Park.  Ms De Wit explained that she is concerned by the lack of maintenance of the areas of Roimata Commons within Radley Park. She said that some of the planted areas are now being overgrown with grass and weeds.

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

 

The Board requested staff advice regarding maintenance responsibility for Roimata Commons at Radley Park.

 

The Board requested signage about the Roimata Commons Project for informing the community about the project.

 

2.   Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga

Part B

There were no declarations of interest recorded.

5.   Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga

Part B

4.6

Phillipstown Hub (refer to Item 12 Clause 5)

Part B

Viviana Zanetti, Coordinator and Simon Gray, Secretary, spoke on behalf of the Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust about the aim of establishing a permanent hub in Phillipstown and seeking the inclusion of this as a priority in the Community Board Plan currently being developed. 

After questions from members, the Chairperson on behalf of the Board, thanked Ms Zanetti and Mr Gray and for their deputation.

Attachments

a       Phillipstown Hub presentation  

 

5.2

Inner City East Revitalisation Project (refer to Item 12 Clause 4 )

Part B

Jane Higgins, facilitator presented on behalf of the Inner City East (ICE) Working Party regarding the community-led revitalisation project in the Inner City East.

After questions from members, the Chairperson on behalf of the  Board, thanked Jane Higgins for her deputation.

Attachments

a       Inner City East Revitalisation Project presentation  

 

6.   Presentation of Petitions / Ngā Pākikitanga

Part B

There was no presentation of petitions.

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.06pm and re-convened at  4.17pm

 

7.   Correspondence

 

Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receive the information in the correspondence report dated 25 November 2019.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00132

Part B

That the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Receives the information in the correspondence report dated 25 October 2019.

2.         Requests staff advice on points raised in the Redcliffs Residents Association correspondence on:

a.         Redcliffs Village parking issues adjacent to The Red House and the clinic.

b.         The maintenance schedule of the Redcliffs Village footpaths and gutters.

c.         The maintenance schedule of the Redcliffs Parks and Reserves.

d.         The erection of an advisory sign at Te Papa Kura/Redcliffs Park showing the playground.

e.         The feasibility of an archaeological centre, display area or heritage signage in Redcliffs.

f.          The repair of the Heritage Tram Shelter in Moncks Bay.

Tim Lindley/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                                  Carried

 

8.   Desi Place - Proposed P60 Parking Time Restrictions

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00133 Original staff recommendations accepted without change.

Part C

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

1.         Revokes any previous resolutions pertaining to traffic controls made pursuant to any bylaw to the extent that they are in conflict with the traffic controls described in the report attached to the meeting agenda.

2.         Approves that the parking of vehicles be restricted to 60 minute parking on the west side of Desi Place commencing at a point 30 metres north of its intersection with Nuttall Drive and extending in an northerly direction for a distance of 17 metres. This restriction is to apply between the hours of 8.00am and 8.00pm Monday to Friday.

3.         Approves that these resolutions take effect when parking signage and/or road marking that evidence the restrictions described in 1. and 2. are in place.

Jake McLellan/Michelle Lomax                                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

9.   Keighleys Road - No Stopping Reinstatement by Bromley Cemetery

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00134 (Original staff recommendations  accepted without change.)

Part C

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

1.         Approves  that all parking and stopping restrictions on the south western side of Keighleys Road, commencing at a point 205 metres north of the prolongation of the northern kerb line of Bromley Road and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of nine metres be revoked.

2.         Approves that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the south western side of Keighleys Road, commencing at a point 205 metres north of the prolongation of the northern kerb line of Bromley Road, and extending in a north westerly direction for a distance of nine metres.

Yani Johanson/Darrell Latham                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 

10. Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board's 2019/20 Youth Development Fund Applications - Paigan-Lilly Louise Watson-Hall, Caitlin Georgia Quinn, Moahengio Vavau Mika Ngaumo, Sofi He Lotu Leaaetoa Taumalolo and East Empire Sports

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00135 Original staff recommendations accepted without change.

Part C

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

1.         Approves a grant of $500 from its 2019/20 Youth Development Fund to Paigan-Lilly Louise Watson-Hall towards Linwood College Vietnam Tour 2020.

2.         Approves a grant $400 of from its 2019/20 Youth Development Fund to Caitlin Georgia Quinn towards World Salsa Solo’s.

3.         Approves a grant of $100 from its 2019/20 Youth Development Fund to Sofi He Lotu Leaaetoa Taumalolo towards Auckland Schools Polyfest.

4.         Approves a grant of $600 from its 2019/20 Youth Development to East Empire Sports towards Junior National Tag Tournament for Moahengio Vavau Mika ($200), Chelden Hayward ($200), and to Delahoia Te Pakeke-Kakoi ($200).

Jackie Simons/Michelle Lomax                                                                                                                           Carried

 

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

 

Staff Recommendations/Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Consider joining with another Zone 5 Community Board(s) in nominating and/or seconding a candidate for election to the position of Local Government New Zealand’s Zone 5 Representative on the New Zealand Community Boards’ Executive Committee.

2.         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. 

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00136

Part C

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

1.         Join with Papanui –Innes, Fendalton-Waimariri-Harewood, Coastal-Burwood and Halwell-Hornby-Riccarton Community Boards in nominating and/or seconding Alexandra Davids for election to the position of Local Government New Zealand’s Zone 5 Representative on the New Zealand Community Boards’ Executive Committee.

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

Tim Lindley/Sally Buck                                                                                                                                           Carried

 

 

12. Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - November 2019

 

Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu 

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

1.         Receive the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for November 2019.

2.         Confirm that the next ordinary meeting of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is to be held on Monday 9 December 2019, at the Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street commencing at 3pm.

3.         Receive and note the information reported to the Board on:

a.         Gracefield Avenue Trees

b.         Cutler Park Renewal.

c.         Development Christchurch Limited (DCL) Review of the Suburban Masterplans.

d.         Linwood Avenue Business Post 15 March 2019 Attack support.

e.         Scarborough Reserve 2 – Trees and Shrub Trimming.

f.          Suburban Regeneration Biannual Update.

g.         Proposed amendments to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

4.         Adopt the Terms of Reference for the Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party.

a.         To appoint four Board members to be the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representatives on the Greening the East Joint Working Party.

b.         To appoint the Greening the East Joint Working Party Chairperson.

5.         Approve the formation of a joint working party with the Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust to develop a proposal for a community facility on the current Phillipstown Community Hub site.  

6.         Appoint two Board members to have the delegation to approve or decline applications to the Board’s Light Bulb Moment Fund. 

7.         Consider items for inclusion for the Board Report to the Council’s 12 December 2019 meeting.

 

Community Board Resolved LCHB/2019/00137

Part B

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

1.         Receives the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for November 2019.

2.         Confirm that the next ordinary meeting of the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board is to be held on Monday 9 December 2019, at the Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street commencing at 3pm.

3.         Receives and note the information reported to the Board on:

a.         Gracefield Avenue Trees

b.         Cutler Park Renewal.

c.         Development Christchurch Limited (DCL) Review of the Suburban Masterplans.

d.         Linwood Avenue Business Post 15 March 2019 Attack support.

e.         Scarborough Reserve 2 – Trees and Shrub Trimming.

f.          Suburban Regeneration Biannual Update.

g.         Proposed amendments to the Alcohol Restrictions in Public Places Bylaw 2018.

3.         Requests staff to consult with Gracefield Avenue residents on the replacement street tree species prior to planting.

4.         Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party and appoints:

a.         Sally Buck, Alexandra Davids, Michelle Lomax and Jake McLellan to be the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board representatives on the Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party.

b.         Sally Buck as the Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party Chairperson.

5.         Notes its support for the work of the Phillipstown Community Centre Charitable Trust and the Board’s intention to advocate on the Trust’s behalf in its quest for a permanent home for the Phillipstown Community Hub.

a.         Requests staff advice on the requirements for a feasibility study and business case for a community facility to be reported back to the Board’s February 2020 meeting.

6.         Delegates to Darrell Latham and Alexandra Davids the power to approve or decline on behalf of the Board applications to the Board’s Light Bulb Moment Fund.  The outcome of Light Bulb Moments applications to be reported back to the Board for record purposes.

6.         Requests briefings on:

a.         The Playgrounds Network and Renewal Programme.

b.         DCL Review on Suburban Masterplans including receiving a copy of the DCL report prior to the Briefing.

c.         Global Stormwater Water Consent Proposed Process for the additional funding allocated by Council’s Annual Plan meeting of 25 June 2019 for Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River.

d.         Speed Management Areas within Linwood-Central-Heathcote Board area.

7.         Requests that the following matters be included in the Board’s Report to the Council meeting on 12 December 2019.

a.         Coastal Pathway Opening and the Monks Bay Gap.

b.         Phillipstown Community Hub

c.         Linwood Public Transport (PT) Hub

d.         Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party.

e.         Ōpāwaho to Ihutai Project.

f.          Walking Festival Walks – Coastal Pathway and Dogs Day Out.

g.         Rocks on Sumner beach between Rapanui/Shag Rock and Sumner Lifesaving Club.

h.         Bromley Heavy Transport Community Workshop.

i.          Governance Team Staff Member upcoming retirement.

j.          Speed Management Areas within Linwood-Central-Heathcote.

Michelle Lomax/Jackie Simons                                                                                                                            Carried

 

 13.  Elected Members’ Information Exchange

Part B

Board members shared the following information:

·        Bromley Community Centre Annual General Meeting was held recently.

·        Victoria Neighbourhood Association meeting was held recently.

·        The Board were advised that there continues to be water pooling on the Moa Street corner site.

·        Connal Reserve has not re-opened and neighbours are voicing their concerns with elected members.

·        There are reports available on shellfish gathering within the estuary.

·        Keep Christchurch Beautiful Schools Environment Enhancement Awards was held recently.

 

Meeting concluded at 6.09 pm.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 9th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

 

Sally Buck

Chairperson

   


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

7.     Briefings

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1269881

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Liz Beaven, Community Board Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

The Board will be briefed on the following:

Subject

Presenter(s)

Unit/Organisation

Edmonds Band Rotunda Repair Update

Ritchie Moyle

Programme Manager Heritage

Penfolds Cob Cottage Repair Update

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Notes the information supplied during the Briefings.

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

There are no attachments to this report.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

8.     Maryville Courts (Salisbury Street and Colombo Street) - Proposed No Stopping Restrictions

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1306927

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Peter Rodgers, Traffic Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       This report is being provided to fulfil resolution LCHB/2019/00110 of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board from 2 September 2019 where the Board resolved to:

Request a staff report on the possible installation of no stopping restrictions at the Colombo and Salisbury Streets entrances to Maryville Retirement Village, to stop vehicles parking within a metre of the entrances.

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

That the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve Option 1 (Do Nothing):

1.         Receive the information in the report.

That should the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decline to approve Option 1, that the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board approve Option 2:

2.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the north side of Salisbury Street commencing at a point 94 metres west of its intersection with Manchester Street and extending in an easterly direction for a distance of nine metres.

3.         Approve that the stopping of vehicles be prohibited at any time on the east side of Colombo Street commencing at a point 84 metres north of its intersection with Salisbury Street and extending in a northerly direction for a distance of eight metres.

4.         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 recommendations 2-3 above.

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

3.   Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

3.1       The recommendations in this report are consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

3.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·   Option 1 - Do Nothing (preferred option).

·   Option 2 - Install No Stopping Restrictions.

3.3       Option Summary - Advantages and Disadvantages (Preferred Option)

3.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Is consistent with treatment for other residential vehicle entranceways around the city.

·     No increase in maintenance costs.

3.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·     Is not consistent with the request from centre management of Maryville Courts.

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue / Ngā take

4.1       The Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board has requested a staff report on the possible installation of no stopping restrictions at the Colombo and Salisbury Streets entrances to Maryville Retirement Village, to stop vehicles parking within a metre of the entrances.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.2       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.

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

4.4       The recommendations in this report are also consistent with the anticipated outcomes of the Traffic Safety & Efficiency Service Plan in the Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)  

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

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

4.6       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.

4.7       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

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

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

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

Context / Te Horopaki

4.11    Council has received several requests from the centre manager at Maryville Courts to install no stopping lines beside the vehicle entrances, which have been previously declined. Background information on previous requests and advice regarding possible no stopping restrictions at this location has been provided to the Community Board previously on 2 September 2019 through the area report and is attached in Attachment B.

4.12    Salisbury Street is a one-way street for traffic travelling eastbound with a current posted speed limit of 50km/hr.

4.13    Council normally does not install no stopping restrictions at driveways to improve visibility – In order to achieve adequate visibility from driveways for vehicles in the driveway to pick a gap in oncoming traffic, this would require treating the driveway as if it were a road intersection and removing most of the on-street parking on the road network. Putting no stopping restrictions in one location would also set a precedent for doing the same at other commercial and residential shared driveways, private lanes and private rights of way around the city.

4.14    Council also does not normally install no stopping restrictions at driveways to deter vehicles parking or blocking the driveway. Parking close to or blocking a driveway is prohibited by the Land Transport Rule (Road User Rule), which states that when parking, a motorist should not park within one metre of a driveway. Because of this, no stopping restrictions are not necessary for enforcement purposes. No stopping lines require consultation and community board approval if it is desired to install them over the driveway.

4.15    ‘Parking ticks’ or ‘hockey sticks’ are sometimes marked one metre from a driveway in order to highlight to drivers the presence of a driveway and to deter parking within one metre of the driveway.

Previous requests

4.16    In 2010 there was a request from the centre manager at Maryville Courts: the request for no stopping lines was investigated and declined by the traffic engineer. A written response was requested, and that written response was recorded in Council’s records and is attached.

4.17    In 2017 there was another request from the same manager that made the request 2010, which was again investigated and declined, for the same reasons (this time by a different traffic engineer)

Crash History / Risk rating

4.18    There have been no recorded crashes at this location in the past 5 years. Extending the crash to all recorded crashes did not find any recorded crashes entering or exiting this driveway.

4.19    Council have not been provided with any details of unreported crashes occurring at this location.

4.20    Salisbury Street is classified as Medium collective risk under Council’s risk mapping system.

Parking compliance

4.21    The Council’s Parking Compliance team undertook enforcement at this location at the end of August 2019. The outcome of this was:

4.21.1 “Locations were checked at random times twice daily during requested period. Only one infringement was found to have occurred during this time, at the Colombo Street vehicle entrance. This resulted only an infringement notice to be issued. Officers have noted that there are road markings along Salisbury St which operate effectively, however there are no road markings at the Colombo St entrance/exit. “

4.22    As a result of this staff have issued instructions to the contractor to install ‘parking tick’ road markings at the Colombo Street vehicle entranceway.

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

·   Option 1 – Do Nothing (preferred option).

·   Option 2 - Install No Stopping Restrictions.

5.2       No other options were considered.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3       Option One: Preferred Option:  Do nothing.

5.3.1   Option Description: Do not install any additional road markings.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Is consistent with treatment for other residential vehicle entranceways around the city.

·     No increase in maintenance costs.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Is not consistent with the request from centre management of Maryville Courts.

5.4       Option Two: Install no stopping restrictions

5.4.1   Option Description: Install No Stopping restrictions to stop vehicles parking within a metre of the entrances. in accordance with Attachment A.

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     Adds additional road markings to make it clear that vehicles should not park within one metre of these vehicle entrances.

·     Is supported by the centre management of Maryville Courts.

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     May set an expectation that Council will install no stopping restrictions at other residential vehicle entrances.

Analysis Criteria / Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.5       Options within this report have been assessed against the sight distance requirements for driveways of Council’s Infrastructure Design Standard. 

Options Considerations / Te Whaiwhakaarotanga

5.6       It is also not recommended to install no stopping lines more than one metre from the driveway, as discussed in section 4.13 and in Attachment B.

5.7       As discussed in section 4.14 Council does not normally install no stopping restrictions to demonstrate that a driveway should not be parked over, as this is already prohibited by national legislation. Exceptions to this may be when there are broken yellow lines installed for a different reason, such as a clearway, cycle lane, close to an intersection, close to a narrowed section of road or a pedestrian refuge island. There are also locations where new vehicle entranceways have been opened where there are broken yellow lines and the broken yellow lines have not been removed.

5.8       The parking compliance team have not received complaints of vehicles parking blocking either of these vehicle entranceways. Twice daily checks from parking compliance in late August 2019 found that vehicles are not parking over the Salisbury street vehicle entranceway and on one occasion, a vehicle parked within one metre of the Colombo Street vehicle entranceway.

5.9       Parking within one metre of the Colombo Street vehicle entrance can be mitigated by installation of a white ‘parking tick’ road marking. Instructions have been issued to the contractor to do this.

5.10    Broken yellow lines will incur a minor increase in maintenance costs, and is not expected that broken yellow lines will have any additional benefit to deterring illegal parking because there is no evidence of nor complaints of illegal parking occurring at these locations.

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

6.1       The centre management for Maryville Courts was advised of the proposal as per Attachment A to install no stopping restrictions by email.

6.2       The centre manager on behalf of the residents of Maryville Courts responded in support of installing no stopping restrictions, stating:

6.2.1   “On behalf of our residents, staff, families and visitors to the village, I wish to respond affirmatively to the proposal emailed to me today

Our village residents and their visitors are mostly elderly drivers and struggle at both gates to safely navigate exiting onto both Colombo and Salisbury Streets.

We have had many near miss situation and I am surprised that there hasn’t been a serious accident involving our residents and other motorists before now.

I am frequently approached by health care providers and family members who also believe their safety is compromised in the act of exiting and entering the village because of cars parked too close causing the limited visualisation of oncoming traffic.

I have petitioned the Council on at least two occasions during the past 15 years with no success in seeking a solution such as this and I am most gratified to see this matter being considered seriously.

I would urge the Linwood – Central – Heathcote Community Board to recommend the installation of additional broken yellow lines at both the Colombo and Salisbury Street gates

Serious injury or a loss of life is a real potential should things remain as they currently stand.”

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

7.2       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 outlined in sections 5.5-5.7.

8.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

8.1       Approval is required by the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

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

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed No Stopping Restrictions Maryville Courts - Plan For Board Approval

23

b

Staff advice regarding no stopping Maryville Courts

25

 

 

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

Peter Rodgers - Traffic Engineer

Approved By

Wayne Gallot - Senior Transportation Engineer

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

9.     Gloucester Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road - Access to Public Transport

Reference:

19/1258770

Presenter(s):

Brenda O’Donoghue, Passenger Transport Engineer

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board (Community Board) to consider for approval two new bus stops to be installed on Gloucester Street in the section between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road. 

2.   Executive Summary

2.1       This report is staff generated in response to requests for bus stops to be installed on Gloucester Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road, one on the north side of the road (outbound route) and one on the south side of the road (inbound route). 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’.

2.2       Staff investigated locations for where the new bus stops could be installed. Two options on both the north and south side of the road were advanced to consultation.

2.3       The relevant Community Board for the area have the delegated authority to approve the installation of the bus stops.

3.   Staff Recommendations 

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

North side - new bus stop beside 377 Gloucester Street (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report)

1.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

2.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

South side - new bus stop beside 368/370 Gloucester Street (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report)

3.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A2 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report).

4.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A2, and as identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment A of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

That should the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decline to approve Option 1, that the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board resolve to approve bus stops on Gloucester Street at alternative locations not included in Option 1:

Advice Note: The following draft resolutions are not the preferred option (Option 1), but have been included in this report to enable the Board to easily and accurately approve alternative locations that were considered. The Board must not approve all 8 ‘staff recommendations’ but either 1 to 4 (Option 1) or a combination of 1 to 8 must be resolved for a bus stop on the north side and a bus stop on the south side of Gloucester Street. Resolutions 9 to 10 are generic to all options and must accompany the Boards decision should they approve the proposed bus stops.

North side - new bus stop beside 385 Gloucester Street (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report)

5.         Under clause 7 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the stopping of vehicles is prohibited on the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report).

6.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment B of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

South side - new bus stop beside 356 Gloucester Street (refer to Attachment C of the agenda report)

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 Gloucester Street referred to as A1 and as shown by broken yellow lines, identified as ‘no stopping’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment C of the agenda report).

8.         Under clause 8 of the Christchurch City Council Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2017, that the part of Gloucester Street referred to as A1, and as identified as ‘bus stop’ on the attached drawing TG135611, dated 06/11/2019 (refer to Attachment C of the agenda report), is reserved as a parking place in the form of a bus stop for the exclusive use of buses at all times.

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

10.       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 Councils Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028)

4.2       The following feasible options have been considered:

·      Option 1 – Install bus stops on Gloucester Street beside 377 and 368/370 Gloucester Street (preferred option, refer to Attachment A)

·      Option 2 – Install bus stops on Gloucester Street at alternative locations (refer to Attachment B and Attachment C)

·      Option 3 –Do nothing


 

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

4.3.1   The advantages of this option include:

·     Good separation distances between the previous and next bus stops.

·     Good catchment potential for people living along Gloucester Street, between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road. Thereby enabling better mode choice through shorter walking distances to access public transport.

·     All of the bus stops have an appropriate kerb height, which makes for a more accessible step height between the footpath and the bus.

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

·     All locations are suitable for a bus passenger shelter, should the Council wish to pursue this in the future.

·     The properties located beside the proposed bus stops have privacy screening, such as fences and hedges.

·     The bus stops are not located across driveways.

·     Both of the key public transport stakeholder organisations (ECan and GoBus) consulted, selected the bus stop locations relevant to Option 1 of this report as their preferred option.

4.3.2   The disadvantages of this option include:

·    Relocates on-street parking presently available for residents and visitors to those who travel by public transport. There is sufficient on-street parking capacity in the general area for other motorists to continue to park on-street.

·     Overall the consultation feedback by the residents who responded did not strongly indicate any particular bus stop location as being preferential for the north or south side of Gloucester Street.

·     The proposed bus stop beside 377 Gloucester Street is located alongside a utility post. This increases the risk of possible damage to the bus and post should the bus pull up close to the utility post. However the location of the utility post is unlikely to impact the safe entry and exit of the bus, due to the location of the post relative to its forward location along the bus box.

5.   Context/Background

5.1       Currently, for the outbound route (north side), the two adjacent bus stops in this section are located about 710 metres apart. For the inbound route (south side), the two adjacent bus stops in this section are located about 630 metres apart. The separation distance between the bus stops is greater than what is preferable. The preferable distance is about 400 metres, which typically means that most people living within the catchment area of the bus route have about a five-minute walk to or from a bus stop.

5.2       The locations of the existing bus stops in this area are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Distance between existing bus stops on Gloucester Street

5.3       The proposed bus stops will be serviced by the Yellow bus line which typically operates to a 15 minute frequency. Recent passenger boarding numbers for the bus stops near Stanmore Road and Fitzgerald Avenue, suggests daily boardings of about 40 to 100 passengers per day. This indicates there is a strong demand for public transport in this area.

Bus stop location planning

5.4       Bus stops provide key access connection points to allow personal mobility, by means of public transport. The importance of bus stops is reflected in the Christchurch Suburban Parking Policy (2019).

5.5       It can be a challenge in an urban-residential environment to achieve a balance in bus stop planning criteria, because of the need to work with the space available on-street, and to be considerate to those who live near the bus stop.  However, the effects of bus stops in urban settings are generally not site-specific, they will have similar effects along the street irrespective of which property it is placed by.

5.6       There are multiple considerations in the location planning of bus stops, however the key topics to consider include:

·      Catchment areas and proximity to surrounding services and amenities;

·      Works well for the wider road network, bus network and bus passengers;

·      Accessibility;

·      Capacity;

·      Impact on the surrounding environment; and

·      Information gathered from site visits and feedback from stakeholders (Environment Canterbury, bus operators and residents).

5.7       In urban areas, the common bus stop spacing (that is the distance one bus stop to the next) is about 400 metres. This means that most people within the catchment area of the bus route have about a five-minute walk to or from a bus stop.

5.8       The bus stop spacing recommendation does not need to be adhered to rigidly as the stop spacing will need to vary based on the surrounding environment. For example, where there are topographical barriers like hills or where there is a lack of good pedestrian connectivity, bus stops may need to be less than 400 metres. Whereas, in a rural area or on high frequency services, the stop spacing may exceed 400 metres.

5.9       Understanding the catchment area and proximity to the surrounding services provides a better understanding about the trade-off in locating bus stops slightly closer together or further apart.

5.10    Following the multiple considerations in the location planning of bus stops, staff have determined a need for two new bus stops on Gloucester Street, between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road in order to provide appropriate public transport access to people who live in the surrounding residential area.

Strategic Alignment

5.11    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.

5.12    All recommendations in this report, except for “Option 4 – Do nothing” supports the Council's Long Term Plan (2018 - 2028):

5.12.1 Activity: Public Transport Infrastructure

·      Level of Service: 10.4.1 More people are choosing to travel by bus. - >=+0% (13,467,570 pax)

5.13    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.

5.14    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.


 

5.15    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 1 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

1st

Safety

Safety

Safety

2nd

Movement and amenity

Movement and amenity

Movement and amenity

3rd

Mobility parking

Mobility parking

Mobility parking

4th

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)

5th

Taxi ranks (special passenger vehicle stands)

Residents parking

Short stay parking

6th

Loading zones

Cycle parks/ bike corrals/ shared parking (bike share or car share)/ micromobility (e.g. scooters)

Residents parking

7th

Short stay parking

Short stay parking

Commuter parking

8th

Residents parking

Commuter parking

 

9th

Commuter parking

 

 

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

Decision Making Authority

5.16    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.

5.17    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.

5.18    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

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

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

5.21    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 1 – Install bus stops on Gloucester Street beside 377 and 368/370 Gloucester Street

·   Option 2 – Install bus stops on Gloucester Street at alternative locations

·   Option 3 –Do nothing

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 – Install bus stops at preferred locations on Gloucester Street, beside 377 and 368/370 Gloucester Street.

6.3.1   Option Description: Install bus stops beside 377 and 368/370 Gloucester Street, in accordance with Attachment A. The Option 1 bus stop locations are shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 2: Option 1 bus stop locations on Gloucester Street

6.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Good separation distances between the previous and next bus stops.

·     Good catchment potential for people living along Gloucester Street, between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road. Thereby enabling better mode choice through shorter walking distances to access public transport.

·     All of the bus stops have an appropriate kerb height, which makes for a more accessible step height between the footpath and the bus.

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

·     All locations are suitable for a bus passenger shelter, should the Council wish to pursue this in the future.

·     The properties located beside the proposed bus stops have privacy screening, such as fences and hedges.

·     The bus stops are not located across driveways.

·     Both of the key public transport stakeholder organisations (ECan and GoBus) consulted, selected the bus stop locations relevant to Option 1 of this report as their preferred option.

6.3.3   Option disadvantages

·     Relocates on-street parking presently available for residents and visitors to those who travel by public transport. There is sufficient on-street parking capacity in the general area for other motorists to continue to park on-street.

·     Overall the consultation feedback by the residents who responded did not strongly indicate any particular bus stop location as being preferential for the north or south side of Gloucester Street.

·     The proposed bus stop beside 377 Gloucester Street is located alongside a utility post. This increases the risk of possible damage to the bus and post should the bus pull up close to the utility post. However the location of the utility post is unlikely to impact the safe entry and exit of the bus, due to the location of the post relative to its forward location along the bus box.

6.4       Option 2 – Install bus stops on Gloucester Street at alternative locations.

6.4.1   Option Description: The bus stop locations that would be suitable as an alternative to the preferred bus stop locations are:

·     On the north side (outbound route), beside 385 Gloucester Street as shown in Figure 3 and in accordance with Attachment B.

Figure 3: Option 2 bus stop location beside 385 Gloucester Street (north side)

·     On the south side (inbound route), beside 356 Gloucester Street as shown in Figure 4 and in accordance with Attachment C. 

Figure 4: Option 2 bus stop location beside 356 Gloucester Street (south side)

6.4.2   Option Advantages – The Option 2 advantages are largely similar to the advantages of Option 1.

6.4.3   Option Disadvantages – Apart from the following points, Option 2 disadvantages are largely similar to the disadvantage of Option 1.

·     At 356 Gloucester Street there is a tree located in close proximity to the kerb is located alongside a tree. The location of the tree, relative to the kerb, increases the risk of it being hit when a bus is manoeuvring into or out of the bus stop. Keeping the bus stop clear of obstacles near the kerb also means that buses can pull up to the kerb, thereby reducing the step gap for customers.

·     The separation distances between the previous and next bus stops are not as evenly balanced as Option 1.

6.5       Option 3 – Do nothing, no new bus stops installed

6.5.1   Option Description:

·      No new bus stops will be installed in the section on Gloucester Street in the section between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road.

6.5.2   Option Advantages

·      Does not reallocate on-street parking.

6.5.3   Option Disadvantages

·      It is not consistent with the outcomes expected in the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028). It is also not consistent with the Council’s strategic framework, equity and access for people with disabilities policy, and the Christchurch suburban parking policy.

·      It has the potential to restrict the freedom of movement and mode choice for people who live along Gloucester Street. This has an even greater impact on people who have limited choices in how they access education, employment and social activities.

·      Restricts the increase in the number of trips made by public transport,

·      The potential negative impact it could have on the Council to carry out its role and functions.

Analysis Criteria

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

6.7       The bus stop planning criteria as outlined in Section 5.  The criteria is used to assess all bus stop location options considered.  A copy of the bus stop location assessment, including those that were not advanced to consultation, is provided in Attachment D.

Options Considerations

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

6.9       Option 3 in this report is not fully consistent with the Council’s approved Service Plan for Public Transport Infrastructure (2018-2028):

6.9.1   Inconsistency – The “Do nothing” option has the potential to not contribute to increase in the number of trips made by public transport.

6.9.2   Reasons for inconsistency – No bus stops are provided, restricting access to public transport.

7.   Community Views and Preferences

7.1       Consultation has been carried out with the affected properties. The consultation period for the proposed bus stops occurred from Thursday 19 September 2019 to Friday 4 October 2019. The consultation catchment area is shown in Figure 5. Letters were dropped into letterboxes at properties located within the catchment area and letters were sent to property owners who do not live at the address.

Figure 5: New bus stops on Gloucester Street - consultation catchment area

7.2       During the consultation, we received 13 submissions from people who live near or own properties near the proposed bus stops.

7.3       Feedback was received from two stakeholder organisations, Environment Canterbury and Go Bus (operator of the Yellow bus line). The feedback from stakeholder organisations has been included separately in Section 7.6 to 7.8.

7.4       Of the residents/property owners who responded to the proposal, their bus stop location preferences are indicated in Table 2.

North side

South side

Location N1: 377 Gloucester Street

Location N2: 385A Gloucester Street

Location S1: 356 Gloucester Street

Location S2: 368/370 Gloucester Street

6

6

7

6

Table 2: Consultation feedback to new bus stops on Gloucester Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road

7.5       Overall the consultation feedback by the residents who responded did not strongly indicate any particular bus stop location as being preferential on the north or south side of Gloucester Street. There was one additional submission for the bus stop on the south side, the submitter did not indicate a preference of a bus stop on the north side.  Feedback provided by submitters is provided in Attachment E.

Consultation feedback – Stakeholder Organisations

7.6       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. 

7.7       Go Bus is the operator of the Yellow 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.

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

 

Environment Canterbury

Go Bus

North

Location N1: 377 Gloucester Street

Location N1: 377 Gloucester Street

South

Location S2: 368/370 Gloucester Street

Location S2: 368/370 Gloucester Street

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 Nothing’ option, there will not be any new bus stops on Gloucester Street between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road which limits people’s access to public transport.

10. Next Steps

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

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

11. Options Matrix

Criteria

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3 – (Do nothing)

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$7,000 for the installation of traffic controls, footpath accessibility upgrade for the bus stops plus $2,000 for consultation and the preparation of this report.

$7,000 for the installation of traffic controls, footpath accessibility upgrade for the bus stops plus $2,000 for consultation and the preparation of this report.

$2,000 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.

$0

Funding Source

Traffic Operations, Capital Expenditure budget for bus stop installations

Impact on Rates

No impact.

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 helps the Council provide a healthy environment and a liveable city, as per the Council’s strategic framework vision.

Not providing access to public transport, does not support mode shift and the associated benefits to the environment.

Social & Community Impacts

Option 1 and Option 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.

Option 3 would have a negative impact on social, community and accessibility impacts, as it restricts the freedom of movement for people who have limited choices in how they access education, employment and social activities.

Accessibility Impacts

Accessibility impacts of this option benefit from shorter walking distances, thereby providing convenient access to public transport for residents living in the area.

 

Criteria

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3 – (Do nothing)

Impact on Mana Whenua

No impact

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

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

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

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


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

 

Attachments 

No.

Title

Page

a

Proposed bus stop - Option 1 - 377 and 368/370 Gloucester Street - TG135611 - For Community Board Approval

45

b

Proposed bus stop - Option 2 - 385 Gloucester Street -TG135611 - For Community Board Approval

46

c

Proposed Bus Stop - Option 2 - 356 Gloucester Street -TG135611 - For Community Board Approval

47

d

Bus stop location options considered - multi criteria analysis

48

e

Consultation feedback - proposed new bus stops on Gloucester Street, between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road

49

f

Consultation plan - proposed new bus stops on Gloucester Street, between Fitzgerald Avenue and Stanmore Road

50

 

Confirmation of Statutory Compliance

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

(a) This report contains:

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

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

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

 

Signatories

Authors

Patricia Su - Passenger Transport Engineer

Brenda O'Donoghue - Passenger Transport Engineer

Approved By

Stephen Wright - Team Leader Traffic Operations

Steffan Thomas - Manager Operations (Transport)

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

10.   King Park Playground Renewal

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1238347

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Marcy McCallum – Project Manager, Tara King – Recreation Planner Parks and Sam Sharland – Engagement Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at King Park (Attachment A).

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       King Park is a community park located at 11 Quarry Road in St Andrews Hill.

2.2       Community engagement was recently undertaken around the renewal of the playground at King Park.

2.3       There was mostly positive support for the renewal of the play space, although there were some concerns around what would happen with the existing equipment.

2.4       We will be renewing all the play equipment and undertaking some landscaping. We presented the community with two options to choose between swing sets for the playground.  Option A – two infant swings and two regular swings or option B – one basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing.  The most popular swing option was option B (83%).

2.5       The community were also able to choose between a dinosaur or a kiwi rocker.  The most popular option was the kiwi rocker (53%).

2.6       Once the landscape plan is approved, the project will proceed to detailed design, tender and construction of the playground.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at King Park in accordance with the staff report shown in Attachment A.

 

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       The Parks Unit work on an approximate 25 year renewal programme for play equipment to ensure that play spaces are safe and to maintain an acceptable level of service.  The playground at King Park is nearing the end of its life span and funding has been allocated in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan for its renewal.

4.2       King Park is located alongside a pocket of red zoned land, at the top of Quarry Road.  The park looks down upon the Mt Pleasant Tennis Club courts and across the Avon Heathcote Ihutai Estuary.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.3       The King Park playground renewal project contributes to achieving the community outcome of safe and healthy communities by encouraging people to participate in active recreation.

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

4.4.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.4 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Playgrounds - condition average or better: 90%

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.5       As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register dated 14 October 2019, the Community Board has the delegation:

·    Landscape development plans for parks and reserves

Approve and adopt any new landscape development plans for parks and reserves provided the design is within the policy and budget set by Council.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.6       There have been no previous decisions in relation to this report. 

4.7       Staff attended a Community Board seminar on 19 August 2019 to discuss the proposed landscape plan prior to community engagement.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.9       The level of significance was determined by using the engagement and significance matrix and has been assessed as being of low significance for the following reasons:

4.10    There would only be a small disruption to park users in order to complete the works.

4.11    The landscape plan will be a positive improvement to the park and will help to encourage more use of the site.

4.12    The costs for this work are within the available budget.

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

·   Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at King Park (Attachment A).  This option includes a swing set with a basket swing, infant swing and regular swing and the kiwi rocker.

·   Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at King Park and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

5.2       The following options were considered but ruled out

·   Do nothing – due to the play equipment nearing the end of its lifespan, this option was ruled out due to public health and safety.  The Council Parks Unit have an asset condition model that considers asset life span and condition to project a renewal year.  Simply removing the play equipment and not renewing it was also ruled out as the next nearest playground is over 700m away down the hill at McCormacks Bay Reserve.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3       Option 1 - Preferred Option: Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at King Park (Refer attachment A).

5.3.1   Option Description: To renew the play equipment at King Park as shown in attachment A.  The proposed equipment consists of the following items:

·    A swing set that includes – one basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing.

·    A 1.5 metre double slide

·    A space shuttle spinner

·    A kiwi rocker

·    Accessibility into the playground has been improved through including an asphalt path from the car park into the play area, with access ramps into the playground.

·    A new accessible picnic table near the playground.

·    A new rubbish bin located near the new picnic table.

·    Planting of seven new trees.

·    Relocation of two seats within the park to better locations within the park.

·    Removal of the old play equipment that is reaching the end of its life span, consisting of the slide, swing set and roundabout.

·    Removal of the old rubbish bin that is in poor condition.

·    Retainment of the existing see-saw and picnic table.  Although the see-saw will need to be removed when the condition declines further.

·    The new play space area has been moved closer to the car park.  To allow better shelter from the wind and to retain more open space for informal ball sports.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Removal of the play equipment that is reaching the end of its life span, ensures that any potential safety risks to playground users has been resolved.

·     The new play equipment provides a wide range of play value and development benefits to the user and meets the current NZS 5828.2016 Playground Equipment and Surfacing Standards.

·     The new landscape plan and play equipment provides a more accessible space for the community with connecting paths to the play space, accessible picnic table and two accessible play options (basket swing and space shuttle spinner).  Those with accessibility challenges can be placed lying down in both of these items.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Park users are affected by this option, due to the closure of the play space during the construction period.

5.4       Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at King Park - request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

5.4.1   Option Description: The landscape plan for the playground is not approved and the Community Board request staff to consider alternative playground design for King Park and re-consult with the community.

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     The community has the opportunity to consider alternative play space design.

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     This option would have an impact on the existing budget, as the new playground design costs would need to come out of the play space renewal budget.  It is likely that one or more items of equipment would need to be removed or the size of the play space reduced to fit within the available budget (or consider including additional budget in future Long Term Plans).

·     Delay in construction timeframes.

·     Risk of consultation fatigue in that community, as they have already been involved in the consultation and provided feedback.

 

Analysis Criteria / Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.5       The options were analysed on their cost and community feedback and preferences.

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

6.1       The consultation focussed on children and families using the playground and the surrounding area.  They were targeted by the use of temporary signage at the park advertising the consultation.  This also included a document holder so paper copies of the consultation material could be taken away.

Temporary signage at King Park

 

6.2       Consultation leaflets were hand delivered to approximately six properties surrounding the park (refer attachments B), and a link to the ‘Have Your Say’ page was emailed to 20 key stakeholders including the Mt Pleasant day care centre and the Mt Pleasant Tennis Club.

6.3       We received 40 submissions during the consultation period from 9 October 2019 to 6 November 2019.  The feedback received was mostly positive, although some submitters had concerns about what would happen to the existing play equipment.

6.4       The common themes from the community feedback included:

·    What is happening with the old play equipment

·    Request for more rubbish bins

·    Support for the existing play equipment

·    Concerns over the current antisocial behaviour at the park

·    Concern over the new location of the playground having no shelter from the wind.

6.5       The project team responses in regard to these common themes are:

Old play equipment

The majority of the existing play equipment is nearing the end of its lifespan.  The Council Parks Unit have an asset condition model that considers asset life span and condition to estimate when equipment is due to be renewed. 

The old equipment will be offered to Ferrymead Heritage Park for restoration and display purposes.

It is not cost effective to restore the equipment for reuse within King Park (or another public park). Any modifications would need to be re-certified to comply with the playground standards and it is likely that some of the equipment is unable to be modified to comply. There is a significant cost involved with the restoration and re-compliance and there is no guarantee it would last for another 25 years (until further renewal funding was available).

Request for more rubbish bins

We would prefer that park users take their rubbish home with them, so that it can be recycled (where possible).  However, we have amended the plan and included one new rubbish bin to replace the existing rubbish bin which is in poor condition.  The new bin will be placed in a more appropriate location near the play area.

Support for the existing play equipment

We appreciate that some people in the community enjoy the heritage style look of the existing play equipment, however the majority of the existing play equipment is nearing the end of its lifespan.  The Council Parks Unit have an asset condition model that considers asset life span and condition to estimate when equipment is due to be renewed.  We investigated repairing the equipment but this was not a viable option due to the condition of the equipment and the cost to repair it.  The old equipment will be offered to Ferrymead Heritage Park for restoration and display purposes.

Concerns over current antisocial behaviour in the park

With the renewal of the play space, we hope that this will encourage more people in the park which will make it less likely to be a location for anti-social behaviour.

New playground location in relation to shelter from the wind

There was concern raised from some submitters about the new location for the playground not having any shelter from the wind.  In response to this, we have moved the playground closer to the car park area so that the existing planting in the park provides some shelter.

Moving the playground closer to the car park then also opens up more space within the park for informal ball play.

6.6       Swing set options

We gave people the option to choose between two swing sets, with option B bring the most popular.

·    Option A – Two infant swings and two regular swings

·    Option B – One basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing

 

Option A

Option B

Not indicated

Total

6 (15%)

33 (83%)

1 (2%)

40 (100%)

 

6.7       Rocker options

We also gave people the option to choose between two rocker play items.

·    Dinosaur.

·    Kiwi.

 

Dinosaur

Kiwi

Not indicated

Total

18 (45%)

21 (53%)

1 (2%)

40 (100%)

 

6.8       All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.  All submissions with names but without address and contact details are available publicly on our ‘Have Your Say’ page.

6.9       All submitters from this consultation (who provided contact details) have been advised of the results of the community feedback, the staff recommendation, the Community Board meeting details and how they can request to speak at the meeting if they wish to do so.  They were also provided with the updated landscape plan.

Changes following consultation

6.10    The following changes were made to the concept plan for King Park following community consultation:

·    The swing set with the basket swing was chosen as this was the most popular option chosen by the community.

·    The kiwi rocker was chosen as this was the most popular option supported by the community.

·    The existing rubbish bin has been replaced with a new rubbish bin and is located next to the new picnic table.

·    The new playground area has been moved closer to the car park.  To allow better shelter from the wind and to retain more open space for informal ball sports.

·    Planting of seven new trees instead of nine trees.  This number has been reduced due to the new location of the playground and the available space with the set-backs from the existing services in the park.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       There is a low risk of increase in costs of play equipment caused through the time delay from estimates at the start of the concept design phase until gaining concept plan approval and placing orders.  The treatment of this risk is to confirm estimates and obtain final quotes as soon as the plan has had Community Board approval.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Following approval of the King Park Playground Landscape Plan by the Community Board, detailed design and tendering of the project will begin.  Construction is expected to begin in May 2020 and if possible be completed by July 2020.  However this is subject to weather conditions and contractor availability.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

10. Options Matrix / Te Poukapa

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Preferred Option: Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at King Park (Refer attachment A).

Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at King Park - request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$90,000

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed

Maintenance/Ongoing

No change anticipated.

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed

Funding Source

CPMS 51780 King Park Play Space Renewal

CPMS 51780 King Park Play Space Renewal

Impact on Rates

No change anticipated as funding has come from the existing Long Term Plan budget, which rates have already been based on.

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed.

Criteria 1: Climate Change Impacts

Rising groundwater – drainage for the play space will be considered during detailed design.

Rising groundwater – drainage for the play space will be considered during detailed design.

Criteria 2: Accessibility Impacts

Accessibility has been improved with the inclusion of:  Asphalt area from the pathway to the play space, access ramps into each area and between each area where the soft fall levels change and with the inclusion of some accessible play items, basket swing and the space shuttle spinner.

This option includes the development of a new landscape plan.  At a minimum it will ensure accessibility into the space and between the soft fall areas.

Criteria 3: Health & Safety Impacts

Health and safety is improved due to the new play space items being installed that comply with NZ play standards.

The play items that are due for renewal are in financial year 2020.  Delaying this project may have some health and safety impacts.  Some items may need to be removed if they become unsafe.

Criteria 4 : Future Generation Impacts

Increased recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors.

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed.

 


 

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Preferred Option: Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of the playground at King Park (Refer attachment A).

Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the playground renewal at King Park - request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

No significant impact – not working in the waterway or within a culturally significant site.

No significant impact.

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

King Park landscape plan for approval

62

b

Consultation document

63

 

 

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

Tara King - Planner Recreation

Marcy McCallum - Project Manager

Samantha Sharland - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

11.   Radley Playground Renewal (Radley Street in Woolston)

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1239449

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Marcy McCallum – Project Manager, Tara King – Recreation Planner Parks and Sam Sharland – Engagement Advisor

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground in Radley Street in Woolston (as per attachment A).

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Radley Playground is located at 84 Radley Street in Woolston.

2.2       Community engagement was recently undertaken around the renewal of Radley Playground.

2.3       There was really positive support for the renewal of this playground.

2.4       We will be renewing a number of play items and undertaking some landscaping. We presented the community with two different options for renewal of the swings: option A – two infant swings and two regular swings or option B – one basket swing and one regular swing.  The most popular swing option was Option B (72%).

2.5       Once the landscape plan is approved, the project will proceed to detailed design, tender and construction of the playground.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground in accordance with the staff report shown in attachment A.

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       The Parks Unit work on an approximate 25 year renewal programme for play equipment to ensure that play spaces are safe and to maintain an acceptable level of service.  Radley Playground is nearing the end of its life span and funding has been allocated in the 2018-28 Long Term Plan for its renewal.

4.2       The area that is now Radley Playground used to be part of Troutdale Farm where Andrew Mensal Johnson bred the first brown trout in New Zealand.  The farm was a popular picnic area until it closed in the early 1930’s and a number of the original trees remain in the park today.  In recognition of this, a fish rocker was chosen as a play item to link the history of the park to Troutdale Farm.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.3       The Radley Playground renewal project contributes to achieving the community outcome of safe and healthy communities by encouraging people to participate in active recreation.

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

4.4.1   Activity: Parks & Foreshore

·     Level of Service: 6.8.2.4 Parks are provided managed and maintained in a clean, tidy, safe, functional and equitable manner (Asset Condition) - Playgrounds - condition average or better: 90%

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.5       As per the Christchurch City Council’s Delegation Register dated 14 October 2019, the Community Board has the delegation:

·    Landscape development plans for parks and reserves

Approve and adopt any new landscape development plans for parks and reserves provided the design is within the policy and budget set by Council.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.6       There have been no previous decisions in relation to this report.

4.7       Staff attended a Community Board seminar on 19 August 2019 to discuss the proposed landscape plan prior to community engagement commencing.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.9       The level of significance was determined by using the engagement and significance matrix.  And has been assesses as low significance for the following reasons:

4.10    There would only be a small disruption to park users in order to complete the works.

4.11    The landscape plan will be a positive improvement to the park and will help to encourage more use of the site.

4.12    The costs for this work are within the available budget.

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

·   Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground (refer attachment A).  This option renews play equipment and includes one basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing (option B) as this was the most popular option chosen by the community.

·   Do not approve the landscape plan for Radley Playground and request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

5.2       The following options were considered but ruled out

·   Do nothing – due to the play equipment nearing the end of its lifespan, this option was ruled out due to public health and safety.  The Council Parks Unit have an asset condition model that considers asset life span and condition to project a renewal year. Simply removing the play equipment and not renewing it was also ruled out as the next nearest playground is approximately 870m away in Radley Park.

Options Descriptions / Ngā Kōwhiringa

5.3       Option 1 - Preferred Option: Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground (refer Attachment A)

5.3.1   Option Description: To renew the play equipment at Radley Playground as shown in Attachment A.  The proposed equipment consists of the following items:

·    A swing set that includes - one basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing.

·    A 1.8 metre high slide (higher than the existing slide).

·    A climbing carousel.

·    A single see-saw.

·    A double rocker – fish.

·    Accessibility into the playground has been improved through including an ashpalt path from the existing footpath into the playground, with access ramps into the playground.

·    A new accessible picnic table.

·    The inclusion of one new rubbish bin, to be located near the new picnic table.

·    Planting of three new trees around the playground.

·    Removal of the old play equipment that is reaching the end of its life span, consisting of the swing set, slide and see-saw.

5.3.2   Option Advantages

·     Renewal of the play equipment that is reaching the end of its life span, ensures that any potential safety risks to playground users has been resolved.

·     The new play equipment provides a wide range of play value and development benefits to the user and meets the current NZS 5828.2016 Playground Equipment and Surfacing Standards.

·     The new play space includes better accessibility into the play space, as well as the inclusion of two accessible play items (basket swing and climbing carousel).

·     The new pathway provides better access into the site.

·     An accessible picnic table has also been included.

5.3.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Park users are affected by this option, due to the closure of the playground during the construction period.

5.4       Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground – request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

5.4.1   Option Description: The landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground is not approved and the Community Board request staff to consider alternative playground designs for Radley Playground and re-consult with the community.

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     The community has the opportunity to consider alternative play space design.

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     This option would have an impact on the existing budget, as the new playground design costs would need to come out of the play space renewal budget.  It is likely that one or more items of equipment would need to be removed or the size of the play space reduced to fit within the available budget (or consider including additional budget in future Long Term Plans).

·     Delay in construction timeframes.

·     Risk of consultation fatigue in that community, as they have already been involved in the consultation and provided feedback.

Analysis Criteria / Ngā Paearu Wetekina

5.5       The options were analysed on their cost and community feedback and preferences.

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

6.1       The consultation focussed on children and families using the playground and the surrounding area.  They were targeted by the use of temporary signage at the park, which also included a document holder so paper copies of the consultation material could be taken away.

Temporary signage at Radley Playground

 

6.1       Consultation leaflets were hand delivered to approximately 80 properties surrounding the park (refer to attachments B) and a link to the ‘Have Your Say’ page was emailed to 20 key stakeholders.  We received 32 submissions during the consultation period from 9 October until 6 November 2019.  The feedback received was very positive and a number of submitters commented that the play space was well overdue for renewal.

6.2       The common themes from the community feedback included:

·    To look at planting around the edge of the park

·    More swing options

·    Lighting the park

·    More rubbish bins

6.3       The project team response in regard to these common themes are:

Planting the edge of the park

A comment was made about concerns in relation to planting reducing visibility into the park.  The plants used around the picnic area will be a species that does not have the ability to grow too high, we agree that good visibility into the playground from the street is important.

Lighting the park

The budget for this project does not allow for the inclusion of lighting in the park and we would not want to encourage night-time use of this space.  We would not want to give people the impression that this is a safe place to walk after dark. Lighting the park could also have an adverse effect on neighbouring properties.

More rubbish bins

We would prefer that park users take their rubbish home with them so that it can be recycled (where possible).  However we have amended the plan to include one new rubbish bin.

6.4       Swing set options

We gave people the option to choose between two swing sets, with option B being the most popular:

·    Option A – two infant swings and two regular swings

·    Option B – one basket swing, one infant swing and one regular swing

 

Option A

Option B

Total

9 (28%)

23 (72%)

32 (100%)

 

6.5       All submissions with names and addresses have been provided to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board members.  All submissions with names but without address and contact details are available on our ‘Have Your Say’ page.

6.6       All submitters from this consultation (who provided contact details) have been advised of the results of the community feedback, the staff recommendation, the Community Board meeting details and how they can request to speak at the meeting if they wish to do so.  They were also provided with the updated landscape plan.

Changes following consultation

6.7       The following changes have been made to the concept plan for Radley Playground following community consultation:

·    The option B swing has been included in the amended plan as this was the most popular item chosen by the community.

·    A new rubbish bin has been included.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       There is a low risk of increase in costs of play equipment caused through time delay from estimates at the start of the concept design phase, until gaining concept plan approval and placing order.  The treatment of this risk is to confirm estimates and obtain final quotes as soon as the plan has Community Board approval.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Following approval of the Radley Playground Landscape Plan by the Community Board, detailed design and tendering of the project will begin.  Construction is expected to begin in May 2020 and if possible be completed by July 2020.  However, this is subject to weather conditions and contractor availability.

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

10. Options Matrix / Te Poukapa

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground (refer Attachment A)

Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground – request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$75,000

Unknown until new landscape plan is developed.

Maintenance/Ongoing

No change anticipated.

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed.

Funding Source

CPMS 51779 Radley Playground – play space renewal

CPMS 51779 Radley Playground – play space renewal

Impact on Rates

No change anticipated as funding has come from the existing Long Term Plan budget, which rates have already been based on.

Unknown until a new landscape plan is developed.

Criteria 1: Climate Change Impacts

Rising groundwater – drainage for the playground will be considered during detailed design.

Rising groundwater – drainage for the playground will be considered during detailed design.

Criteria 2: Accessibility Impacts

Accessibility has been improved with the inclusion of an asphalt area from the pathway to the play space, access ramps, and accessible picnic table and two accessible play items (basket swing and climbing carousel).

This option to include the development of a new landscape plan, at a minimum it will ensure accessibility into the space and between the soft fall areas.

Criteria 3: Health & Safety Impacts

Health and safety is improved due to a new play space being installed that complies with the NZ Play Standards.

The existing play equipment is due to be renewed in Financial year 2020, delaying this project may have some health and safety impacts.  Or require spending further maintenance funding or removal of any unsafe play items.

Criteria 4: Future Generation Impacts

Increased recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors.

Will be determined when the new plan is developed.

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 - Approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground (refer Attachment A)

Option 2 - Do not approve the landscape plan for the renewal of Radley Playground – request staff to consider alternative designs and re-consult with the community.

Impact on Mana Whenua

No significant impact – not working in the waterway or within a culturally significant site.

No significant impact

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002

Parks and Waterways Access Policy 2002

Physical Recreation and Sports Strategy 2002


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Radley Playground landscape plan for approval

76

b

Radley Playground consultation document

77

 

 

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

Tara King - Planner Recreation

Marcy McCallum - Project Manager

Samantha Sharland - Engagement Advisor

Approved By

Kelly Hansen - Manager Parks Planning & Asset Management

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Mary Richardson - General Manager Citizens & Community

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

12.   Heathcote Dredging Stage 3 and 4a Tree Removals

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1145813

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Ben Pasco, Project Manager Land Drainage and Stormwater

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve the removal of three healthy and structurally sound trees in the road corridor as part of the Lower Heathcote River Dredging works.

1.2       The report also advises the Community Board of the removal of 15 unhealthy and structurally unsound trees within the Board’s boundary, under staff delegations. 

2.   Executive Summary / Te Whakarāpopoto Matua

2.1       Dredging of the Lower Heathcote River, to reduce flood risk, commenced in September 2018. The first two stages are now complete and work has begun on Stages 3 and 4a.

2.2       Tree removals are a necessary part of the dredging works to remove channel restrictions, provide dredging access, and allow bank stabilisation to take place. 

2.3       The Stage 3 and 4a Landscape Plans will be presented to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Boards for approval in early 2020. The preliminary landscape plans include approximately 87 new trees and 6,256 m² of riparian planting.

 

3.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Approve the removal of three healthy and structurally sound road corridor trees.

4.   Context/Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

4.1       Dredging of the Lower Heathcote River to reduce flood risk commenced in September 2018 simultaneously on Stage 1 (Radley Street to Woolston Cut) and Stage 2 (Opawa Road to Radley Street). These stages are now complete, and work has begun on Stages 3 and Stage 4a (Opawa Road to St Martins Road), proposed to run through to late 2020. The benefits of Stage 4b, between St Martins and Wilsons Roads, are currently being assessed.

4.2       Tree removals are a necessary part of the dredging works to remove channel restrictions, provide dredging access, and allow bank stabilisation to take place.  All removed trees will be replaced as part of the proposed Stage 3 and 4a landscape works.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

4.3       The dredging work contributes to Council’s strategic priority of making informed and proactive approaches to natural hazard risks. The tree removals will not affect whether the dredging takes place or not. However, not undertaking tree removals will reduce the benefits from the dredging as more channel restrictions and sediment will remain in place.

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

4.4.1   Activity: Flood Protection & Control Works

·     Level of Service: 14.1.5 Implement Land Drainage Recovery Programme works to reduce flooding. - Delivery of works to meet floodplain management plans and remaining high priority plans: Ongoing delivery to Heathcote Floodplain management plans.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

4.5       The Community Board has the authority to approve the removal of trees in road corridors under Part D, Sub-Part 1, Section 334 of Council’s Delegations Register.

4.6       The Head of Transport and the Head of Parks has the authority to approve the removal of unhealthy and structurally unsound trees located within road corridors and parks under Part B, Sub-Part 3, Section 20 of Council’s Delegations Register.

·    Although all of the trees to be removed are within road corridor land, some of the road corridor is unformed road that runs around the edge of Hansen Park and is managed as part of the park.

Previous Decisions / Ngā Whakatau o mua

4.7       This project is identified within the Council approved Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 within the Stormwater Drainage activity.

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

4.9       The level of significance was determined as the works related directly to this decision:

4.9.1   Are aligned with Council’s strategic priorities.

4.9.2   A relatively low number of residents will be directly affected by the tree removals.

4.9.3   The works are not significant at the citywide level.

4.10    Engagement has taken place through newsletters and a number of public meetings and drop-in sessions.

Integration with Lower Heathcote Master Plan Development

4.11    The proposed planting and landscaping will support the overall development of the Lower Heathcote River and is consistent with the plans being developed as part of the Lower Heathcote Master Plan work.

 

5.   Options Analysis / Ngā Kōwhiringa Tātari

Options Considered / Ngā Kōwhiringa Whaiwhakaaro

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

·   Undertake removals of trees in healthy and structurally sound condition to facilitate the dredging work and to reduce flow restrictions along the river

·   Dredging only with no removals of trees in healthy and structurally sound condition

5.2       No further options were considered.

Options Descriptions

5.3       Preferred Option: Undertake tree removals to facilitate dredging and to reduce flow restrictions along the river

5.3.1   Option Description: A tree assessment has been carried out to assess the condition of the existing trees, assist with informing the design to minimise potential adverse effects, and to quantify the removals that will be required (refer Attachment A).

5.3.2   The tree survey quantities include:

·    3 healthy and structurally sound trees

·    15 unhealthy and structurally unsound trees

·    10 unhealthy and structurally unsound trees in the Spreydon Cashmere Board area.

5.3.3   The three healthy and structurally sound trees to be removed are described below:

Location

Tree ID

Species

Height

Condition

Hansen Park (road corridor)

83381

Common Alder

15.0m

Fair (3)

Hansen Park (road corridor)

83407

Red Alder

11.0m

Fair (3)

75 Aynsley Terrace

85717

White Poplar

20.0m

Fair (3)

 

5.3.4   The locations of the three healthy and structurally sound trees are identified on Figure 1, and further details are given in Attachment A. Two of the trees are located on the edge of Hansen Park near the end of Tekapo Place. These are managed as park trees. One is on the river bank outside 75 Aynsley Terrace and is managed as a street tree. The red circles show other unhealthy or structurally unsound trees to be removed.

 

Figure 1 Location of healthy and structurally sound trees to be removed (identified by yellow arrows)

5.3.5   The condition of the trees has been evaluated using the Christchurch City Council tree assessment system.  The overall condition of a tree is assessed using the table below:

Very Good

1

Good

2

Fair

3

Poor

4

Very Poor

5

 

5.3.6   The score (condition rating) relates to the health and form of a tree:

·     Form includes the structural integrity of the tree (ability to hold together under load)

·     Health (vigour and vitality) generally measured through observing healthy growth and dieback.

5.3.7   The overall condition rating for a tree is calculated by taking the worst score from either form or health to establish the overall assessment rating (e.g. if a tree scores good for health and poor for form then the condition rating will be poor overall for the tree).

5.3.8   Trees that are assessed as being in very good, good or fair condition are healthy and structurally sound, and trees that are in poor or very poor condition are unhealthy and structurally unsound.

5.3.9   Option Advantages

·     Removes restrictions from the river through either the direct removal of trees impeding flow, or through allowing bank widening to take place

·     Increased reduction in flood levels

·     Increases opportunities for site access during dredging operations, increasing the amount of sediment able to be removed

·     The corresponding landscaping work will provide additional benefits to the cultural, ecological and landscape values along the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River

5.3.10 Option Disadvantages

·     Immediate loss of tree cover until new trees grow

·     Loss of visual amenity until new trees grow

5.4       Dredging only with no removals of trees in healthy and structurally sound condition

5.4.1   Option Description: This option would involve only the removal of trees in unhealthy or structurally unsound condition. 

5.4.2   Option Advantages

·     No immediate loss of tree cover

·     No immediate loss of visual amenity

5.4.3   Option Disadvantages

·     Higher flood levels than the preferred option

·     More difficult access to some dredging areas

Analysis Criteria

5.5       The options were assessed on the opportunity cost, feedback from stakeholders and ability to fulfil six values design approach for the Heathcote Dredging project.

Options Considerations

5.6       The preferred option offers:

5.6.1   Closer alignment with Council’s strategic priorities as the preferred option will better manage flood risk

5.6.2   Higher immediate amenity impacts on the community but better long term benefits due to increased habitat

5.6.3   Fastest possible implementation of the dredging works

5.7       The approve removal of trees option is preferred.

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

6.1       The community has expressed a strong preference for dredging to take place as part of the Ōpāwaho/Heathcote River flood mitigation works.

6.2       Community engagement on tree removals and landscape works has been undertaken through the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board facilitated drop in session on 30 April 2019. A further drop-in session specifically for the proposed Stage 3 and 4 landscape works was held on 3 September 2019 at Opawa Community Church.

6.3       Feedback from the community and stakeholders has been positive, recognising the improvement in amenity and increase in natives along the river bank, as well as the benefits in flood risk reduction.  There is recognition that this planting will support the overall aspirations of the Lower Heathcote Master Plan, which is in development.

7.   Legal Implications / Ngā Hīraunga ā-Ture

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

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

8.   Risks / Ngā tūraru

8.1       The most significant risk is considered to be negative community reaction to the tree removals. This has been mitigated through the engagement to date, and will be further mitigated by ensuring that residents are informed of the works prior to them taking place.

8.2       There is a health and safety risk with any tree removals and therefore the works will be only undertaken by a suitably competent contractor.

9.   Next Steps / Ngā mahinga ā-muri

9.1       Subject to the approval of the Board, the proposed tree removals will be included in a package of works commencing in the first half of 2020.

9.2       The Stage 3 and 4a Landscape Plans will be presented to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote and Waihoro/Spreydon-Cashmere Community Boards for approval in early 2020. The preliminary landscape plans currently include approximately 87 new trees and 6,256 m² of riparian planting.


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

10. Options Matrix

Issue Specific Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Tree removal

Option 2 – Do not remove trees

Option 3 – N/A

Financial Implications

Cost to Implement

$50,000

$0

 

Maintenance/Ongoing

Neutral with current maintenance

Neutral with current maintenance

 

Funding Source

LTP - LDRP 527 Lower Heathcote Dredging (CAPEX & OPEX funded)

n/a

 

Impact on Rates

Already funded as reinstatement for capital project

No impact – project saving

 

Environmental Impacts

Immediate loss of habitat and shading, but long term enhances biodiversity and habitat with native species replanted.

Potential adverse impacts during construction due to exposed banks and erosion will require mitigations

No immediate loss of tree canopy which provides habitat to birds and shading of the river

 

Amenity Impacts

There will be an immediate impact through the tree removals, but more trees will be replanted than removed so longer term there will be a positive effect.

No change to existing amenity.

 

Biodiversity Impacts

Replanting with native trees and a long term increase in tree cover will enhance the biodiversity in this area.

No change to existing. 

 

 

Statutory Criteria

Criteria

Option 1 – Tree removal

Option 2 – Do not remove trees

Option 3 – N/A

Impact on Mana Whenua

Enhances Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River health and amenity

Improves inanga (mahinga kai) habitat.

Mana Whenua have been informed of the wider dredging works and reinstatement plans and will be further informed as works progress.

No change to existing

 

Alignment to Council Plans & Policies

Supports Chapter 9 of the Christchurch District Plan: 9.1.2.1.2 Objective - Maintenance and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity.

Enhances Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River which is a Significant Feature and supports Policy 9.2.2.2.1 (iii) by promoting restoration and ecological enhancement.

Maintains current environment Ōpāwaho / Heathcote River which is a Significant Feature

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Heathcote River Dredging Stages 3 & 4A Tree Report - 20 November 2019

90

b

Heathcote Dredging Stage 3 and 4a Landscape Plans

108

 

 

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

Ben Pasco - Project Manager

Laurie Gordon - Arboricultural Advisor

Peter Christensen - Surface Water Engineer

Approved By

Keith Davison - Manager Land Drainage

Helen Beaumont - Head of Three Waters & Waste

Andrew Rutledge - Head of Parks

Richard Osborne - Head of Transport

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

13.   Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund Application Woolston Development Project Inc Family Support Worker

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1357648

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Sol Smith

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

 

Funding Request Number

Organisation

Project Name

Amount Requested

Amount Recommended

60072

Woolston Community Development Inc.

Family Support Worker

$5,347

$5,340

 

1.2       There is currently a balance of $68,624 remaining in the fund

 

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Approves a grant of $5340 from its 2019/20 Discretionary Response Fund to Woolston Community Development Inc. towards the Family Support Worker.

 

3.   Key Points / Ngā Take Matua

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

3.1       The report is staff generated to provide funding to assist with employment of the Family Support Worker at Woolston Development Inc.

Strategic Alignment / Te Rautaki Tīaroaro

3.2       The recommendation is strongly aligned to the Strategic Framework and in particular the strategic priority of Strengthening Communities. The project will provide a strong sense of community, give people a sense of belonging and encourage them to take part in social, cultural, economic and political life.

Decision Making Authority / Te Mana Whakatau

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

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

3.3.2   The Fund does not cover:

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

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

Assessment of Significance and Engagement / Te Aromatawai Whakahirahira

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

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

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

Discussion / Kōrerorero

3.7       At the time of writing, the balance of the $68,624 Discretionary Response Fund is as below.

Total Budget 2019/20

Granted To Date

Available for allocation

Balance If Staff Recommendation adopted

$179,124

$110,500

$68,624

$63,284

 

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

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

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 2019-20 Discretionary Response Fund Application Woolston Development Project Inc Family Support Worker

122

 

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

Sol Smith - Community Development Advisor

Approved By

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

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

14.   Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Recess Committee 2019-20

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1393061

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Arohanui Grace Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to approve delegation arrangements for the making of any required decisions (including applications for funding) that would otherwise be dealt with by the Board, covering the period following its scheduled meeting for the year on 9 December 2019 until its next ordinary meeting in 2020.

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu

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

1.         Appoints a Recess Committee comprising the Board Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson and at least two Board members to be authorised to exercise the delegated powers of the Waikura/Linwood Central Heathcote Community Board for the period following its ordinary meeting on 9 December 2019 up until the Board resumes normal business in February 2020.

2.         That the any such delegation exercised by the Board’s Recess Committee be reported to the Board for record purposes.

3.         Note that any meeting convened of the Recess Committee will be publically notified and the details forwarded to all Board members.

3.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

3.1       In the previous year the Board resolved to provide delegated authority to a Recess Committee with the same terms as recommended above.

3.2       It is to be noted that all Board members are members of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Recess Committee and that if the Recess Committee is required to meet that the agenda would be sent to all Board members.

 

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

Author

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

15.   Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board - Governance Arrangements for 2020

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1393762

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Arohanui Grace, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

1.1       The purpose of this report is for the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to consider approving the 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, to confirm the continuation of the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party 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 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board:

1.         Hold an Ordinary Meeting of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board on Monday 3 February 2020 at 3pm at the Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street, Linwood.

2.         Notes:

a.         That in 2020 Board meetings will be held on first Monday (commencing at 3pm) and third Wednesday (commencing at 9am) of each calendar month.

b.         That the above schedule may be amended to accommodate public holidays.

c.         That an actual dates meeting schedule will be presented to the Board’s 3 February 2020 Board meeting.

3.         Notes the holding of Board Briefings will be on first Wednesday (commencing at 9am) and third Monday (commencing at 3pm) of each calendar month.

4.         Delegates to the Community Governance Manager, in consultation with the Board Chairperson, the ability to amend the meeting schedule as required.

5.         Confirms the continuation of the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party.

a.         Appoints the Board members membership of the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party.

b.         Appoints the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party Working Party Chairperson.

6.         Establishes a Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Submissions Committee for the 2019-22 term as follows:

a.         Term of Reference being to respond on behalf of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to submission opportunities as they arise.

b.         That all members of the Community Board to be appointed as members of the Submissions Committee, with the exception of the Councillors when the Council is the final decision maker of the matter.

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 Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board.

f.          Any submissions made by the Submissions Committee to be reported to the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board for record purposes.

3.   Context / Background / Te Horopaki

Issue or Opportunity / Ngā take, Ngā Whaihua rānei

Meeting Schedule

3.1       The staff recommendation in this report, for the Board to adopt a meeting schedule through to March 2017, has been developed based on:

3.1.1   The holding of two Board meetings per month

3.1.2   Consideration of other commitments on the Council calendar (e.g. Council meetings)

3.2       The venue for Board meetings will be the Linwood Boardroom, 180 Smith Street.

3.3       It is intended that the bi-monthly meetings will be full business meetings.

3.4       Briefings provide an opportunity for Board members and staff to have informal discussions on issues where no decisions are required at that time.  It is intended that Board briefings be held be on first Wednesday (commencing at 9am) and third Monday (commencing at 3pm) of each calendar month.

3.5       The structure used by the former Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board did not include formal committees although it did include two working parties (Scott Park Working Party (now no longer required) and the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party (approved 19 June 2019).. The Working Party Terms of Reference are attached. Attachment A

3.5.1   The previous Board at its19 June 2019 meeting appointed Sally Buck (Working Party Chairperson), Alexandra Davids and Yani Johanson as the Community Board members of the Ōpāwaho to Ihutai ((Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party). 

3.5.2   The current Community Board approved at its 25 November 2019 meeting the establishment of Joint Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board and Inner City East Revitalisation Project Greening the East Working Party.

3.6       A proposed meeting schedule with recommended dates will be presented to the Board’s 3 February 2020 meeting.

Appointment of Committees, Subcommittees and Working Parties

3.7       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.

3.8       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.

3.9       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

3.10    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.

3.11    Should the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board decide to appoint a Submissions Committee, it is recommended that it be a formal Committee of the Board, that the membership consist of all board members excluding the Councillors when the Council are the final decision makers of the matter and that the Terms of Reference are ‘to respond on behalf of the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board to submission opportunities as they arise during the 2019-20 term.

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

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Ōpāwaho to Ihutai (Lower Heathcote River Catchment Plan) Working Party Terms of Reference Approved by Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board 5 August 2019

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

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

16.   Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report - December 2019

Reference / Te Tohutoro:

19/1318962

Presenter(s) / Te kaipāhō:

Arohanui Grace, Community Governance Manager

 

 

1.   Purpose of Report / Te Pūtake Pūrongo

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

2.   Staff Recommendations / Ngā Tūtohu 

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

1.         Receive the Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Area Report for 9 December 2019.

2.         Nominate a Board member to be the Boards representative judge for 2020 Christchurch Street and Garden Awards.

3.         Increase the Board’s Light Bulb Moment Fund maximum grant of $250 to $500.

3.   Community Board Activities and Forward Planning

3.1       Memos/Information/Advice to the Board

3.1.1   Christchurch Street and Garden Awards – the Board is asked to consider an elected member representative as a liaison person for the 2020 Christchurch Street and Garden Awards.  Final judging for 2020 Awards is to be carried out by the Principal Judge, senior judges from the Christchurch Beautifying Association and an elected board member.  The date for the Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board area is Thursday 20 February 2020, 9am – 12noon.

3.2       Board area Consultations/Engagement/Submission opportunities

3.2.1   There are no consultations open to the community within the Community Board Area:

3.3       Annual Plan and Long Term Plan matters

3.3.1   The following link outlines the recommendations that were adopted in the Long Term Plan 2018-2028: http://christchurch.infocouncil.biz/Open/2018/06/CLTP_20180622_MIN_2843_AT.PDF.

3.3.2   The Board will be invited to begin the process of defining its priorities for the Council’s Annual Plan 2020 over the coming weeks.  Engagement with the local community to determine its views will be held in the new year.

3.4       Board Reporting

3.4.1   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in the Board Newsletter.

3.4.2   Members are invited to suggest items for inclusion in the Board Report to the Council.

4.   Community Board Plan – Update against Outcomes

4.1       The Board has held one workshop to commence the development of the Community Board Plan 2019-2022.  The next workshop is planned for mid-January 2020.

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

5.1       Bromley Heavy Transport

The Board held a community workshop on Bromley Heavy Transport matters at the Bromley Community Centre on 12 November 2019.  The Board have held a further workshop to discuss the matters raised at the community workshop and possible ways forward.

5.2       Coastal Pathway – Clifton Beach

The Board invited the Redcliffs and Sumner community to a Board briefing on the Coastal Pathway Stage 4 works and Clifton Beach. The briefing was held on 18 November 2019 at Matuku Takotako: Sumner Centre.

6.   Updates from Other Units

6.1       Community Parks Bi-monthly Update – November 2019

6.1.1   Local Park Rangers are currently in the midst of their busiest season of the year. Requests for Service tickets are starting to increase with the warmer weather and growth rates increasing.

6.1.2   The Community Parks team are in their third month of in-house staff mobilisation, while Recreational Services has continued to deliver bulk mowing, spraying and bin emptying activities in local parks.

6.1.3   Staunton reserve has had much work done, conducted by the Council’s Rangers.

6.1.4   Sports Parks Update

·     Warmer temperatures and frequent wet weather in September and October have increased the spring growing season. Because of this, Parks have added an additional summer sports mow to the schedule to reduce the amount of clippings on sports fields.

·     Additional sports field mowing has been added into the programmed maintenance scheduled to keep with increased grass growth

·     The activities carried out in the sports field renovation programme is listed below:

·    Under-sowing (applying grass seed)

·    De-compaction (breaking up top layer of soil)

·    Weed control

·    Topdressing (adding topsoil to level out dips and hollows)

·    Fertilising

6.1.5   Capital Works Projects

·     Works at Connal Reserve have now been completed.

·     Woolston Park is undergoing major renovations, which includes the playground.

6.1.6   Community Park Maintenance Schedule

Activity

Frequency per month

Ornamental mowing

4

Amenity mowing

4

Ornamental garden maintenance

3

Summer sport field mowing

4

Summer sport cricket block maintenance

4

Summer sport line marking

2

Chemical weed control

1

Bin Emptying

As required

Play and Fitness Equipment Check

1

Drinking Fountain Clean

4

 

6.1.7   Contractor Performance

·      Recreational Services Northern Sector KPI quality score for October was 91%

Breakdown of Eastern Sector KPI scores:

7.   Community Board Funding Update

7.1       Currently the Board’s Light Bulb Moment Fund has a maximum grant of $250.  The Board is requested to consider increasing the maximum grant amount that can be granted for the Board’s Light Bulb Moment Fund 2019/20. 

7.1.1   Groups making applications to the Light Bulb Moment Fund are varied, however requests are invariably for the maximum amount of $250.  Increasing the maximum amount, allows for rising costs and a wider range of projects to be funded.

7.2       The current status of the Board’s funds are:

7.2.1   Discretionary Response Fund unallocated balance for 2019/20 is $68,624.

7.2.2   Youth Development Fund unallocated balance for 2019/20 is $6,750.

7.2.3   Light Bulb Moments Fund unallocated balance for 2019/20 is $2,750

7.3       The 2019/20 Discretionary Response Funding Spreadsheet is attached. (Attachment A).

 

Attachments / Ngā Tāpirihanga

No.

Title

Page

a

Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board Discretionary Response Fund Allocations 2019 to 2020

137

 

Signatories / Ngā Kaiwaitohu

Authors

Emily Carlton - Support Officer

Sol Smith - Community Development Advisor

Bruce Coleman - Community Development Advisor

Liz Beaven - Community Board Advisor

Approved By

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

Matthew McLintock - Manager Community Governance Team

John Filsell - Head of Community Support, Governance and Partnerships

  


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 


Waikura/Linwood-Central-Heathcote Community Board

09 December 2019

 

 

17.   Elected Members’ Information Exchange

 

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